Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday 12 May at Seven o'clock.

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 May.

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]

STANDARD CHARTERED MERCHANT BANK BILL (By Order)

LLOYDS BOWMAKER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 May at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Metropolis (Marches)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he takes into consideration when deciding whether to accede to any request to ban a march or demonstration in the metropolis.

The Secretary of Stale for the Home Department, (Mr. William Whitelaw): I have no power to ban demonstrations. As to marches, the Public Order Act 1936 provides that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Commissioner of the City police may, subject to my consent, make an order banning all marches or any class of march, but only if he believes that his other powers of control under the Act will be insufficient to prevent marches occasioning serious public disorder. In each case I consider the Commissioner's reasons for reaching his operational judgment. Beyond that, specific considerations may vary, but I always reach my decision on whether to consent to a banning order on what I judge will be in the public interest.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his considered reply. Since last year, over 750,000 police man-hours, involving more than 100 officers, have been used in controlling demonstrations in the metropolis. Will my right hon. Friend seriously and sympathetically consider an extension to the Public Order Act, if necessary, so that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis can ask for the re-routeing or banning of a march or demonstration if he can show that, if it went ahead, it would impede his main priority of fighting crime in London?

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend will appreciate that that does not come into the present law on serious public disorder. Those who decide to exercise their undoubted right to have marches or demonstrations must recognise the responsibilities that they are taking on and the danger that they will take away from others in the metropolis the police protection that they want.

Mr. Snape: How many police officers were engaged in controlling the demonstration in Trafalgar Square the Sunday before last, organised by Lady Olga Maitland and her upper-middle class friends, in support of nuclear weapons? Has the Home Secretary, or anyone else in his Department, considered sending the bill for policing such demonstrations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or to the Sunday Express?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot give an answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question without notice.
If I were to send bills to all those who organised demonstrations, those bills would be considerable. —[Interruption.]—If the right hon. Gentleman would like me to send those bills, I should be pleased to do so.

Mr. Neubert: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I would very much like him to send those bills to the organisations that arrange demonstrations on the streets of London? Is he further aware that the number of such demonstrations has increased sevenfold in nine years? As


people are increasingly taking politics on to the streets, at great cost and inconvenience to the general public, particularly the ratepayers of London, is it not about time that they were asked to pay for the privilege?

Mr. Whitelaw: I say again that those who decide to have marches and demonstrations, which is their democratic right, must accept their full responsibilities. In the Green Paper on public order I have made it clear that there are formidable problems, in principle and in practice, in suggestions about making conditions of control and in deciding to levy costs. However, we must look at the responsibility of all those who seek to organise demonstrations and marches.

"Protect and Survive"

Mr. Neil Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the new edition of "Protect and Survive" will be made available to the public; and whether free copies will be provided for training civil defence volunteers.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): We expect the successor to "Protect and Survive" to be ready for publication early next year.
Under the draft civil defence grant regulations, local authorities will be eligible for reimbursement of the cost of the training of volunteers, including that of any publications necessarily issued to them.

Mr. Thorne: In view of the growing interest in this matter and its undoubted importance, will my hon. and learned Friend examine the possibility of producing audiovisual and other aids so that the message can be got over as clearly and effectively as possible?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes. Audio-visual versions of the new document will be available through the Central Film Library, just as war crises tapes are already available. It is an important matter and we want to give it wide publicity.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that, in the past few years, Government instructions about what we should do in the event of nuclear attack have varied? We were told that we must all stay in our homes; then that we must evacuate. We are now told, I believe, that some of us must stay at home and others must evacuate. Will he assure us that this new edition of "Protect and Survive" will be his last word on the matter? Otherwise, there is a danger that it will not be taken seriously.

Mr. Mayhew: I am glad to hear the implication in the hon. Lady's question that she believes that civil defence ought to be taken seriously. I hope that she will press that view on her colleagues in the Labour party. It is important that advice to the country should change and keep pace with developments. That is what my right hon. Friend is determined to secure.

Local Authority Executives (Nuclear Shelters)

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether instructions have been issued to chief executives of local authorities to be based within a certain radius of a nuclear shelter.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister explain why the metropolitan borough of Sefton is spending £l million to move the chief executive's office from Bootle to leafy Southport to be near the nuclear fall-out bunker so that, when the four-minute warning comes, he can get there, but the people of Bootle cannot? Is he aware that it is a waste of money because, when last there was a practice run, he arrived without the key, the caretaker had to be sent for and he arrived an hour later on a bicycle?

Mr. Mayhew: That just goes to show the value of exercises. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do all that he can to drive home the importance of that lesson.

Concessionary Television Licences

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue guidance to local authorities concerning eligibility for concessionary television licences for pensioners.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): Information about the conditions on which the old persons' home television licence may be granted, which remain unchanged, was sent to all local authorities in April 1978. Further advice will be issued when the extension of the 5p licence scheme to physically disabled and mentally disordered people in similar accommodation is introduced.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. All hon. Members are aware that the present system creates many anomalies and dissatisfaction among the majority of pensioners, who do not live in warden supervised accommodation. Is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities appear to be abusing the system by appointing wardens merely to control groups of dwellings so that more elderly people can take advantage of cheap television licences? Is he further aware that that practice is especially rife among Labour-controlled authorities? Is that fair to the public, who are responsible for the expenditure, or elderly people who are still unable to get the benefit of concessionary licences?

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Like the Labour Government, we recognise that the system is anomalous. The problem is that it is impossible equitably to take away the concession from those who have it, and it is not economically realistic to extend it to all pensioners —nor would that be justified. I am aware that my hon. Friend might be referring to publicity for Sheffield city council. It does not have permission for such a scheme, and we wait to hear from it about the matter. It should not be assumed that what the council proposes will fall within the terms of the scheme.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that the present system is complete nonsense and grossly unfair? The Government now claim that a recovery is on the way. Would it not be a good idea to share that recovery with pensioners and let them all have free television licences rather than continue with a system that creates anomolies?

Mr. Mellor: That sounds attractive in theory, but the consequence would be a shortfall of £250 million in revenue to the BBC. Granting the benefit to all pensioners, not all of whom can be described as needy, would be an imposition on many non-pensioner families, some of


whom might be poor, who would have to pay £70 for a television licence to compensate for the shortfall of £250 million. What the hon. Gentleman suggests is an attractive electioneering promise, but it does not have much to it.

Mr. Hattersley: Is the Minister aware that those who want to help pensioners believe that the cost could be met, at least in part, by a proper charge being levied on hotels and other commercial premises which pay a single television licence for, as is the case with the Savoy, 365 television receivers? When will we hear the Government's view about commercial premises being charged a proper fee?

Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government made their view clear some time ago in a written answer. I am not sure that imposing additional burdens on the hotel sector, which provides much employment, is the answer. I do not know whether that is how the right hon. Gentleman will vindicate the promise that the Labour party has made on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman must accept, as he did when he was a member of the Labour Government, that it is not as easy as it sounds to grant that boon to all pensioners without creating unfair consequences for others.

Prison Population

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the size of the prison population; and how many people are currently being held in police and court cells.

Mr. Whitelaw: On 29 April the prison population stood at 44,407, in addition to which 296 prisoners were held in police cells.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Home Secretary agree that holding prisoners in police and court cells is unsatisfactory, and will he advance proposals to remedy that problem urgently? Is he aware that families of prisoners are sometimes told that their relative is being held in custody at one police or court cell, only to find, when they go to visit him, that he has been moved to somewhere completely different where visits are not possible?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree that that is unsatisfactory. As the hon. Gentleman knows, certain wings in some local prisons in London are out of action because we are undertaking improvements and maintenance which should have been carried out a long time ago. No one should suggest that that is wrong. I hope to propose measures that will put the matter right quickly. I have plans to make other places available so that people can be moved from London prisons to others outside.

Mr. Lawrence: Is there any alternative, in the longer run, to building even more prisons than my right hon. Friend proposes?

Mr. Whitelaw: At long last we have a Government who have had the courage to take on the job and to build prisons. That must be right and be seen to be right.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the Home Secretary agree that the key to the alternative to prison is the probation service? Yet, in his article on prison overcrowding in The Times today, the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the probation service. Is that not an extremely regrettable omission? Will he bear in mind that the expected increase

of only 155 probation officers next year will be hopelessly inadequate if the prison population is to be reduced significantly?

Mr. Whitelaw: In that article I referred to the use of non-custodial alternatives. The Government have done a great deal in that regard. Indeed, we have done a great deal more to build up the probation service than any of our predecessors. We have also done a good deal more to increase its numbers. The hon. Lady should remember that.

Mr. Greenway: I appreciate the improvements in the prison service that my right hon. Friend has achieved, but has he had an opportunity yet to read the all-party Select Committee report which unanimously recommended that all prisoners should have the right of access to education as a means of alleviating the problem of thousands of prisoners being kept locked up for as much as 23 hours a day? Does he agree that that is having a severely deleterious effect on their chances of improvement when they return to society?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes. I am grateful for that important report, which should be studied. As I have made clear several times, the more public debate there is on what happens in our prisons, the more likely we are to deal with many of the problems that we have had for a long time and ignored at our peril.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the Home Secretary look for a cheaper and more effective alternative to prison for vagrants who are frequently sent to prison for comparatively small social security frauds, and for whom prison has no rehabilitative effect and is extremely expensive?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that those people should not go to prison, but the magistrates have a problem if someone persistently refuses to pay a fine. What else can they do with him?

Civil Defence

Sir Anthony Kershaw: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects Radio Amateurs Emergency Network—Raynet—operators to be allowed to participate in local civil defence exercises without the prior approval of his Department.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): The role of radio amateurs in civil defence planning and exercises is under review and we expect a decision to be made soon. We believe that they can make an important contribution to civil defence at local level.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Will my hon. and learned Friend give every encouragement to radio amateurs and operators in view of the great help that they could give in an emergency?

Mr. Waddington: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my hon. and learned Friend also consider whether the citizens band radio enthusiast has a role to play in that area, because the enormous growth in citizens band radio usage in recent years could not have been foreseen when the regulations were drawn up? Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that many


people now have expertise in this area and might well be able to play an important role in the public's general growing interest in civil defence?

Mr. Waddington: I shall also consider that matter.

Bingo Clubs

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he is giving to possible changes in the law relating to bingo clubs.

Mr. Mellor: We are prepared in principle to accept the proposal made by the bingo trade association for a new joint game with a maximum prize of £50,000. The details of how the games are to be played and controlled will be discussed by the Home Office and the Gaming Board with the associations.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply will be welcomed by many of those who enjoy the completely harmless pursuit of playing bingo in bingo clubs, and that the provision of that happiness is a substantial social service? Is he further aware that during the past year there has been a decline of about 13 per cent. in attendance at bingo halls and that many halls are threatened with closure? In addition to increasing the prize money, will my hon. Friend also consider removing some restrictions on advertising?

Mr. Mellor: I am glad to know that my hon. and learned Friend spends his afternoons so profitably. There has been a reduction in attendances at bingo halls. The Government believe that bingo halls provide a valuable social club atmosphere for many of our fellow citizens, with nearly 360,000 people attending daily last year. We are considering ways in which we can work with the associations, but any proposals must be compatible with our overall policy of ensuring that the social element rather than the prospect of financial gain predominates.

Mr. Cormack: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that it is part of the Government's duty to encourage people to gamble at bingo?

Mr. Mellor: No. The Government's view has always been that we should not encourage a growth in gambling, but now that attendances are declining and a reasonable proposal has been advanced to allow the associations to re-attract some of the trade that they have lost, it would be wrong, and would damage the interests of those who enjoy bingo, to stand in the way of any such proposals.

Police Interrogations (Tape Recordings)

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to introduce legislation concerning the taping of interrogations of suspects in police stations.

Mr. Whitelaw: The power in clause 51 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill which enables me, with the approval of Parliament, to make codes of practice extends to the tape recording of police interviews. The forthcoming field trials are designed to identify the basis for a national scheme and, therefore, to prove the scope and content of an appropriate code of practice.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate how helpful it was to the House to learn about the criteria upon which he is introducing the field

trials which were revealed in an answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on 29 April? Does my right hon. Friend understand that there is widespread support for his demonstration of his determined effort to reduce crime, and does he accept that, if this is one way forward, he will have solid support behind him?

Mr. Whitelaw: The principle of tape recording was set out by the Royal Commission on criminal procedure. The Government accept what was said and are pressing forward as fast as possible with the field trials. Everyone must accept that when we carry out the tape recording of interviews—we can and will do so under the Bill—we must do it on a sensible basis that will work. The purpose of the field trials is to ensure that the police carry out the operation effectively.

Mr. Hattersley: May I urge the Home Secretary to struggle to remember the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in the small hours of this morning, and to tell the House now, in the light of day, how long it will be before the field trials are completed and, therefore, how long it will be before the prospect of tape recording is widely introduced.—[Interruption.].—I shall pause while the information is passed to the Home Secretary. How long will it be before the field trials are completed, and how long will it be before tape recording is widely introduced?

Mr. Whitelaw: With his customary courtesy, the right hon. Gentleman asks me to struggle to remember something. I do not have to struggle to remember anything. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to struggle to remember what was said during our debates on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I spent many more hours in the House listening to the debates on that Bill than did the right hon. Gentleman, and I need not struggle to remember much of what was said. The tape recording field trials will probably take two years to complete, but we shall press ahead with them as rapidly as possible. The only way to achieve our objective sensibly is to ensure that we start now. We promised to start and we have done so. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is funny, he is entitled to his opinion.

Mr. Grieve: In the experimental period, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, and ask all those concerned to bear in mind, that we must avoid any cheating in the taping of interviews? It would be of no use to substitute the taping of interviews for the present system if the taping were then subjected to the criticism—all too often undeserved—that is levelled against the present system.

Mr. Whitelaw: The purpose of the field trials is to ensure that we get it right so that tape recording can be introduced on a proper basis.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Home Secretary confirm that one hold-up in the commencement of the trials has been the non-availability of a suitable machine for the recording? Which British firms have been asked to tender for the contract to supply machines, and how soon does he hope the machines will be in place?

Mr. Whitelaw: That has been one factor, but we have made as rapid a start as any Government could have made, and we shall press ahead with it as quickly as possible. That is the best guarantee that we can give that it will work.

Animal Welfare Legislation

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to bring forward his proposals for the amendment of animal welfare legislation.

Mr. Mellor: In the very near future.

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the subject has been under discussion for about four years, and can he be a little more precise on whether we are talking about days, weeks or months? Will he assure the House that the proposals will strike a reasonable balance between the proper protection of animals and the reasonable needs of research, which is very important today?

Mr. Mellor: I give my hon. Friend that assurance, but the achievement of that objective is not easy. That is why the matter has been subject to considerable deliberations not only in Britain, where we have received the report of the Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments, but in Europe, where we are working for common standards. I am happy to tell the House that work on the Council of Europe convention on such matters was completed last week.

Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend accept that the time for deliberation has now passed and that the House and the public expect reform proposals that will not only benefit animals but remove some of the burden from legitimate scientists and doctors whose work is being hampered because they are working under what is perceived to be a cloud of suspicion?

Mr. Mellor: I know of my hon. Friend's distinguished work on the Medical Research Council, and I take his point. I assure him that the Government's thoughts on that matter are at an advanced stage.

Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that his original answer will be welcomed by all those who work in the research laboratories in my constituency, such as the Medical Research Council and the British Industrial Biological Research Association? Is he further aware that proposals such as those that he has suggested are long overdue and will be welcomed by my constituents?

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. It is clear that, although the 1876 Act has worked well, there is a need for modernisation. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that. There is also a need to widen controls and to bring into play new concepts that reflect the tremendous changes in experimentation that have taken place over the decades.

Hillingdon (Civil Defence)

Mr. Shersby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the civil defence arrangements for the London borough of Hillingdon.

Mr. Mayhew: Local authorities have a statutory obligation to make plans against the effects of possible hostile attack, and we are satisfied that the London borough of Hillingdon has done all that has been required by law.

Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in Hillingdon will find his reply very

reassuring? Will he confirm that one part of the work of civil defence involves dealing with natural disasters as well as with the effects of hostilities? What steps are the Government taking to encourage people to participate more actively in civil defence, particularly with regard to natural disasters?

Mr. Mayhew: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point. The organisation and training of volunteers for civil defence is a matter of great importance. In the new regulations that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary laid on 28 April, provision is made to encourage local authorities to do that and to reimburse to the extent of 100 per cent. any expenses that they incur and are approved by the Home Office for the organisation and training of volunteers. Of course, a properly developed civil defence structure would also be available for natural disasters. The Civil Defence Act limits expenditure to preparations against hostile attack, but once one has them one can use one's volunteers in the event of a civil disaster, and that is very important.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Would my hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to see whether the Civil Defence Act needs amending to include provision for civil emergencies so that it is beyond doubt that local authorities are also required to provide for such eventualities?

Mr. Mayhew: We must wait to see how local authorities respond to the encouragement which the new regulations — if approved by Parliament — will give. However, my hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that the Civil Defence Act excludes expenditure for such civil emergencies. We shall have to see how we get on.

Winchester Prison

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to reduce the overcrowding in Winchester prison.

Mr. Mellor: The overcrowding at Winchester prison reflects the continuing pressure on the prison system generally. We are considering the feasibility of reducing the numbers held in the remand centre by creating a new under-21 remand facility at Dorchester prison. In the longer term, relief for the establishment as a whole will be provided as additional places become available elsewhere through the prison building programme.

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, but when will all that happen? Does not the Minister's reply really mean that he has no proposals at the moment that will reduce the overcrowding?

Mr. Mellor: No, my reply means nothing of the kind. It means that prisons cannot be built overnight. Since it was the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins)—the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party—who cut the previous Government's prison building programme, the hon. Gentleman cannot expect us to put up overnight the prisons that should have been built during the last decade.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister saying that the only solution to the problem of overcrowding in Winchester and other prisons is an expanded prison building programme? Has he given up any hope of persuading the judiciary to reduce the length of sentences for non-violent offenders?

Mr. Mellor: One has to be selective in the points that one makes, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question. Of course it is our policy, working with the judiciary, that sentences of imprisonment should not be passed—as the Lord Chief Justice has made clear —unless absolutely necessary. Equally, with the growth in the number of offenders coming before the courts—there was a 12 per cent, increase in the work of the Crown courts last year— it is imperative that those prisoners who deserve it should be sent to prison and that there should be prisons to receive them.

Mr. Grieve: Further to that answer, will my hon. Friend avoid, on behalf of the Conservative side of the House at any rate, this insistence upon the point that only violent offenders should be sent to prison? There are many people who prey upon the public by burglary, fraud and other means from whom the public must be protected by means of prison sentences.

Mr. Mellor: I represent a part of inner London that suffers particularly badly from burglaries and I entirely accept what my hon. and learned Friend has said.

Probation Service

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Consett on 31 March, Official Report, c. 266, when he expects to have completed his consideration of the resource implications for the probation service of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.

Mr. Mellor: The resource requirements of the probation service will be included in the normal way in the Government's annual review of their expenditure plans.

Mr. Watkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that highly illumanating reply. Is he aware that the increased burdens placed on the probation service by the Criminal Justice Act 1982 require a reliably estimated 8 per cent. increase in resources? How can the probation service, which is already grossly overstretched, possibly meet the new demands without an adequate increase in resources?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that during the lifetime of this Government there has been real growth in the probation service in every year, and that growth is projected to continue in the public expenditure plans that have been laid before the House. The impact of that has been a 9 per cent. growth in the number of probation officers during the past three years, and a 46 per cent. growth in the number of probation ancillaries. Thus, we recognise that the probation service has an essential role to play in making non-custodial sentences work. We are giving the service the resources to enable it to do the job effectively.

Paraldehyde

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times over the most recent 12-month period paraldehyde has been administered to prisoners in England and Wales.

Mr. Mellor: We do not keep central records of the use of individual drugs in prisons and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Foulkes: Is it not a pity that the Minister is not aware of how often this obnoxious and painful drug is used in prisons in England and Wales? Will he take steps to find out whether it is still being used, and advise against its use, as there are less painful and obnoxious options available?

Mr. Mellor: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's tendentious description of the drug, although it is right to say that other drugs are being used. We could establish what quantities of the drug are being used only by examining the stock records of each and every prison. I do not know that that would be appropriate. Any drug that is used in prison is administered by a qualified medical practitioner, who uses his medical judgment, as any medical practitioner does. I have no reason to think that the use of that drug in prison gives rise to any cause for concern.

Mr. Christopher Price: The Minister will know that since 1980, following pressure from Labour Members, the number of major tranquillisers prescribed in every prison in Britain has appeared at the end of the annual prison report. Would it not be comparatively simple to classify the heavy tranquillisers by type of drug? Surely it would not cost much to obtain the information that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) seeks.

Mr. Mellor: I agree that in the prison department's annual report we publish a record of the dosages dispensed in prisons in five categories. However, the categories are broad. We have yet to be persuaded that, given the medical safeguards that I have set out, and the fact that no prisoner is compelled to take medication other than in very rare emergencies, there is any need to incur the expense involved in making such arrangements and in breaking down the figures further.

Illegal Firearms

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the number of firearms held illegally in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Mayhew: The acquisition and possession of firearms is controlled under the Firearms Act 1968. We are satisfied that the existing controls are generally effective and are not persuaded that further specific measures to reduce the number of firearms held illegally, such as an amnesty, would be justified at this time.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that there is extreme concern in the Greater Manchester area about the increasing number of robberies that involve the use of firearms? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many of those holding firearms appear not to have long criminal records? They seem to be able to get hold of firearms very easily. Is it not important to take steps to take illegal firearms out of circulation by means of an amnesty or other such action so as to tackle the problem at source, rather than simply considering the question of punishing such offenders if and when they are caught?

Mr. Mayhew: Amnesties have to be offered very carefully and generally the practice has been to do it, if at all, only after a change in the law. I would be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman's concern if he had not, together with his colleagues, taken every opportunity to


vote against the proposal in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill to give powers to the police to stop and search people on reasonable suspicion that they were carrying offensive weapons.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that his campaign against those holding firearms illegally does not appear to have been as successful as his campaign against holding them legally? Is he aware that people who have firearms for sport and recreation have been irritated by police and Home Office action against them, which has made not the slightest difference to criminals?

Mr. Mayhew: I think it is right to examine carefully any means that may reasonably result in reducing the number of illegally held firearms, but it is equally important that those who hold them for perfectly proper reasons—there are about 700,000 firearms certificates in this country—are not unreasonably imposed upon.

Mr. Lawrence: Would not the most effective way of reducing the number of illegally held firearms be for magistrates and judges to impose effective deterrent sentences?

Mr. Mayhew: I am a great believer, as is my right hon. Friend, in deterrent sentences. These matters fall to the discretion of the judiciary, as my hon. and learned Friend knows.

Prisoners (Remands)

Mr. Pitt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions he intends to make within the Metropolitan police district to obviate the necessity for prisoners on remand to stay for long periods of time in police stations.

Mr. Mellor: We are taking all possible steps to increase the effective capacity of prison accommodation in London and the south-east, where the present difficulties have arisen, by transferring prisoners to prisons outside the metropolitan area and by various other measures.

Mr. Pitt: Is the Minister aware that on one Monday night two weeks ago 288 people could not be remanded to proper prisons? Is he further aware of the considerable concern in the Metropolitan police district about the number of prisoners who have to be remanded in police stations? Does he not therefore agree that it is about time that magistrates' and Crown courts were encouraged to remand in custody only those whom it is absolutely necessary so to remand?

Mr. Mellor: I have no reason to think that that is not the case. It is not for me to lecture the judiciary on individual cases as to who should be remanded in custody. Having regard to the concern felt by the public of London, including, I imagine, the hon. Gentleman's constituents, about offences committed by people released on bail, I think the hon. Gentleman should be cautious before he tries to lecture.

Mr. Dubs: Can the Minister tell the House how many police officers have been taken away from their jobs of catching criminals to guard prisoners in police and court cells?

Mr. Mellor: Not without notice. The hon. Gentleman knows—I respect his interest in this matter—that we

have been doing all we can to reduce the problem. The hon. Gentleman also knows that building new prisons takes time and the consequences of the refurbishment of old prisons on which we have embarked means that some wings must be taken out of commission while they are worked on, which, of course, poses short-term accommodation problems.

Nuclear Bomb (Casualties)

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete the work on revising the calculations of the likely number of casualties arising from the effects of a nuclear bomb.

Mr. Mayhew: The work is very detailed and complex and will take several more months to complete.

Mr. Strang: Perhaps that is not surprising with the possibility of an election in the offing. Is the Minister aware of the wide concern among professional people who have made a study of these matters about the total inadequacy of the Government's initial casualty figures? Was the decision to reappraise the assumptions contained in these calculations caused by the British Medical Association's report, which came out in favour of the figures produced by Scientists Against Nuclear Arms?

Mr. Mayhew: It was not. It was in train some time before then. I am aware of the great concern in the country about the view taken by a large number of Labour-controlled councils that nothing is to be done in the form of civil defence to protect people against the risk of attack. The right view held by most people on these matters is that it is a humanitarian duty to protect people from the effects of an attack, which we all hope will never come, but which would leave millions of survivors in need of help.

Fraud Squad

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of Metropolitan police officers engaged in fraud squad work and how this compares with one and five years earlier, respectively.

Mr. Mayhew: We understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the number of Metropolitan police officers solely engaged in fraud squad work for the years requested was, in 1978, 163, in 1982, 153 and in 1983, 160.

Mr. Neubert: Are the officers engaged in fraud squad work effective in securing sufficient successful convictions? Now that cases of fraud are so complex, and bearing in mind the need to maintain the integrity of the City of London, is it not time to consider more radical measures, such as moving away from the jury system to the use of a panel of expert assessors?

Mr. Mayhew: I well understand the consideration lying behind my hon. Friend's question. I think, however, that the quality of officers engaged in fraud work is high. It is for the Commissioner to assess whether he has sufficient resources. At present there is certainly no plan to change so important a matter as jury service in this context. I think that the fraud squad is to be congratulated on the high quality of its work.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be holding a reception for the NSPCC.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the Prime Minister aware that her decision to postpone telling the House whether there is to be a June election until after she has had a chance to analyse the local election results shows clearly —[Interruption.]—that, despite all her fine words and all her moral gestures, she is just the same as all the rest—a cynical person prepared to put party before the good of the country?

The Prime Minister: I think that by his stumble the hon. Gentleman has provided the answer to his hollow question.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Does my right hon. Friend approve of the decision of CND to send two observers to the World Peace Council in Prague, sponsored by the Soviet Union? Would not CND do better to campaign against the missiles already deployed in eastern Europe and Russia?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend—it would do very much better so to campaign. The way to get nuclear disarmament is to persuade the Soviet Union to negotiate in Geneva to get the number of weapons on both sides down.

Mr. Foot: When the right hon. Lady said earlier in the week that she would announce the date of the general election using the normal method, was she referring to the story attributed to the Home Secretary today — the leakage method of telling us—the headline of which read:
June 9 is poll date—Whitelaw"?
If that is the case, should not the right hon. Lady tell us herself?
Turning to more serious matters than the Home Secretary, will the Prime Minister look afresh at the statement that was apparently made by her Government to the effect that they will object to any proposition for including British nuclear forces in the matters to be discussed at the INF conference in Geneva? Does she not think that the Government should consider this afresh before she blocks a step that might cause serious wreckage of the disarmament conference?

The Prime Minister: I do not think the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question merits a reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] With regard to the second part of his question, I should make it clear that the British and French nuclear deterrents cannot be included in the INF negotiations, nor should they be. They are our strategic last resort deterrent. They face many many strategic weapons from the Soviet Union, none of which the Soviet Union proposes to include in the INF negotiations.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady cannot dismiss my first question in that way. Does she repudiate the statement that appeared in The Birmingham Post? Will she say that it is false? When will she correct the Home Secretary on the matter?
We are eager to debate the second matter next week in the House. Is the Prime Minister saying that there will be some other negiotiations at which the British Government would be prepared to discuss the British nuclear deterrent as well? If it is possible for these matters to be discussed at the START talks, why should they not be discussed at the INF talks if that could help the talks to succeed?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to what I said last week, and what I said then stands absolutely. The French and British nuclear deterrents are our last-resort deterrents. They are already the absolute minimum to deter. We cannot give up the absolute minimum without robbing this country of a very necessary part of its defence.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is it not clear, however, that Mr. Andropov's limited, but significant, step forward appears to have been much more coolly received in London than in Washington or NATO headquarters? Is the Prime Minister prepared to correct that impression?

The Prime Minister: The previous question referred only to one particular part of the proposals. The other part of the proposal was that we should count the number of warheads rather than the number of missiles. That is what NATO has always wanted, and that part of the proposal is to be welcomed.
Certain other parts of the proposal are highly complex and must be considered carefully before comment is made upon them.

Dr. Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the offer this week of an attractive private health insurance scheme to British Rail workers is most welcome? Does she accept that many of my railway constituents will be joining thousands of other trades union workers in wishing to spend their money in the way that they want, despite the threats of the Opposition party?

The Prime Minister: I agree that it is absolutely right that people should spend their money in their own way and on things of their choice. Many trade unionists have already taken advantage of offers to belong to BUPA that have been negotiated through their employers. They enjoy good terms under such schemes, and it is right that they should continue.

Mr. Pitt: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pitt: In view of the news from America this morning, will the Prime Minister now seek to encourage President Reagan to take the advice of the House of Representatives and support a nuclear freeze?

The Prime Minister: No. To support a nuclear freeze would freeze the superiority of the Soviet Union. I do not know whether that is the hon. Gentleman's policy, but it is not the policy of the Conservative party. Those who want genuine disarmament want reductions in nuclear weapons on both sides, and a freeze would hinder that objective.

Q 3. Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winterton: During my right hon. Friend's very busy programme for the rest of the day, will she pay attention to the levels of public expenditure that are still causing the Government problems, especially revenue expenditure? Will she consider giving an assurance to the House that a future Conservative Government will consider the abolition of the GLC and the other metropolitan county councils that are known for their financial squandermania? Would that not only help public expenditure but create a more accountable and efficient local government? It might, perhaps, be one step on the road to rate reform.

The Prime Minister: It is true that the GLC and ILEA have added enormously to public expenditure. They overspend their targets considerably and, therefore, add greatly to the burden on ratepayers. In view of their record, I agree that many people would find abolition attractive.

Q 4. Mr. Strang: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Strang: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Andropov's offer to count warheads and not simply missiles in Europe is a significant Soviet concession to the United States, and that she was right to welcome it this afternoon? As she said that the Government intend to continue to resist the long-standing Soviet proposal that British nuclear weapons be included in the INF talks, will she tell the House in what circumstances, if any, the British Government would be prepared to negotiate about our nuclear weapons?

The Prime Minister: It is wholly wrong to suggest that our last-resort strategic submarine-based nuclear weapons should be included in the INF talks, which are about mobile, land-based weapons. For the Soviet Union to suggest that is to leave totally out of account all her strategic weapons, including her submarine-based weapons and is meant to delude the British public. It must not succeed in doing so. If we were ever to have a world where there were no nuclear weapons, we should not need a last resort nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scottish Conservatives are very much looking forward to welcoming her to Perth next week?

Mr. Foulkes: All 10 of them.

Mr. Henderson: During my right hon. Friend's visit to Scotland, in addition to emphasising the importance of Scotland in the policies of her Government, will she pay particular attention to the importance of the electronics industry — not least to the significance of the Government's proposals, based on the Alvey proposals, for a £350 million scheme to assist fifth generation computers?

The Prime Minister: Scottish people appear to have a great aptitude for the electronics industry. The companies that have gone to Scotland are doing very well. We made an announcement on the Alvey scheme because

we felt that there were certain aspects of technology that required money spent on a scale that ordinary companies could not achieve. Therefore, we have these collaborative ventures between the university, the Government and certain companies to secure the essential breakthrough. I hope that a number of companies in Scotland will apply for that scheme and participate in it.

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether she will publish her official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister take time today to prepare her election speech for the Tory party conference in Perth a week on Friday? Will she note that on an agenda with 225 motions, not one motion deals directly with unemployment? Indeed, 44 deal with defence. It is a case of bombs, not jobs. Is the Tory party in Scotland and Britain not concerned with unemployment?

The Prime Minister: It would be impossible to discuss any economic question without involving the need to create new jobs. I wholly reject the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Churchill: Further to my right hon. Friend's reply to the Leader of the Opposition, will she make it clear both to him and to Mr. Andropov that the 64 Polaris missiles —16 of which are, at any time, guaranteed to be on station — are there to offset not only the 600 intermediate range Soviet nuclear missiles aimed at our people and our allies in western Europe, but to counter the 2,400 intercontinental strategic nuclear weapons of the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our weapons are an irreducible minimum to deter anyone who might wish to attack us with nuclear weapons. It is absolutely vital that we keep them. We have no shadow of doubt about that.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Prime Minister find time today to congratulate the miners on their record-breaking productivity during the past year? Does she agree that there is now no case for closing pits, especially as we shall need every tonne of coal that we can get to sustain the economic recovery that she assured me last week is, this time, genuine?

The Prime Minister: I am always pleased to congratulate anyone on increased productivity. I look forward to the day when we do not need to make a loss-making subsidy to coal. The British public not only pay for coal by way of its price, but also through the taxpayers' pockets. The total subsidy this year is expected to be about £540 million. The total external financing limit, of which that subsidy is a part, is £1,201 million. There is quite a long way to go. Mr. Siddall is making an excellent job of his work at the National Coal Board.

Mr. Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that insistence on inclusion of the British nuclear deterrent in any negotiations about arms limitation will inevitably be tantamount to unilateral disarmament, in that we would thereby largely do away with our only form of nuclear shield—the ultimate guarantee of our security—whereas


the Soviet Union, under any proposals, would still have a considerable arsenal capable of being directed at and hitting this country?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that to abandon our independent nuclear deterrent would be a form of one-sided disarmament. Deterrence is the most important and first part of defence.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 MAY—Completion of remaining stages of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
Motion on European Community Document 4658/83 on the special programme to combat hunger in the world.
TUESDAY 10 MAY—Debate on a Government motion on defence and disarmament, which will be concluded on WEDNESDAY 11 MAY—the 12th allotted Opposition day.
At the end on Wednesday, motion relating to the Housing Benefits (Transitional) Amendment Regulations.
THURSDAY 12 MAY — Second Reading of the Importation of Milk Bill.
Remaining stages of the Dentists Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 13 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 16 MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, progress on remaining stages of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudication Bill [Lords].
[Debate on 9 May: Special programme to combat hunger Doc. No. 4658/83:
For relevant report of the European Legislation Committee see HC 34-xiii (1982·83) para. 1].

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for arranging the two-day debate on disarmament which, in the light of the Prime Minister's reply today, is all the more necessary. We regard her response to the international situation and to Mr. Andropov's latest proposals as hopelessly inadequate. It was made at a most critical time in the talks and could block the way to the success of the talks. We are glad that the House of Commons will have the chance to give its opinion on the matter, because we believe that we should back what has been said by the House of Representatives in the United States on the matter. We are glad that there will be a full debate on the subject.
May I now put a question about the Housing Benefits (Transitional) Amendment Regulations, which are to be considered on Wednesday? Has it been explained to the right hon. Gentleman by his colleagues that the regulations are being brought forward because of the Government's bungling? The Government were warned that they were forcing the scheme on local authorities without adequate consultation, but those warnings were ignored. As a result, one third of local authorities are not ready to bring in the scheme. For that reason, and because more than 2 million people will get less help with paying their rent than they do now, we shall naturally oppose the motion, and we shall ask the House to exercise its authority by coming to the rescue of the people who have been the victims of the Government's mismanagement.
May we have an assurance that there will be the long-awaited statements on two matters? In shipbuilding there is a major crisis, and if it continues there will be very little shipbuilding in this country. I hope that the right hon.

Gentleman can give us an absolute assurance that we shall have a statement on the subject next week. There is also the long-awaited statement about Ravencraig that we have not yet had from the Government. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance about that.
In the light of the interview that the Prime Minister gave this morning in The Times about the Williamsburg summit, when she almost suggested that nothing would happen there and that she did not expect anything to happen, may we have a statement next week about the policy that the Government. will adopt at Williamsburg, whether they have any policy at all, and whether what the Prime Minister said in the interview constitutes Government policy?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, appreciate that on Monday evening the final item of business will touch on Third world problems. Although it will not cover Williamsburg in the full sense to which he referred, the House will be able to discuss the matter. I shall, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about steel, concerning both the corporate plan and any other arrangements that may be made, particularly at Ravenscraig, the House will have noted that I have already given undertakings on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, particularly on the corporate plan. I am happy to repeat those undertakings, and I shall see that the right hon. Gentleman's views are referred anew to my right hon. Friend. I shall also convey to my right hon. Friend his anxiety that there should be a statement on shipbuilding.
I note that on Wednesday evening the Opposition will vote against the Housing Benefits (Transitional) Amendment Regulations.
I note the relish with which the right hon. Gentleman anticipates the two-day debate on defence and disarmament, and that today's exchanges with the Prime Minister were to some extent a trailer of that debate. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that his relish is fully matched by ours.

Mr. Foot: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is now willing to agree to the debate that we have been demanding for about three months. I thank him very much for the grace with which he has accepted it. His replies on the two other matters are not very satisfactory.
We were promised a statement on Ravenscraig before Easter, and we should now have that statement. How long can the steel industry go on without knowing what its future is to be? Shipbuilding is another urgent matter, and I hope that we shall have an absolute assurance of a statement on that subject next week. I do not know whether the Government want to have it chalked up among their many crimes that they presided over the destruction of the shipbuilding industry in this country, because that is what it looks like.
On the matter of the housing benefits regulations, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands that what we seek to do is to protect the people whom the Government have injured, and he should thank us for that, too.

Mr. Biffen: These exchanges provide an occasion for the right hon. Gentleman to make colourful and somewhat


lengthy denunciations of the alleged shortcomings of the Government, which I do not accept, and it is my task to give somewhat grey, colourless and—I hope—shorter replies. I shall, of course, refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry the anxieties that have been expressed about both shipbuilding and steel.

Mr. Foot: So that the right hon. Gentleman may have another opportunity to give a little more information to the House, may I say that I omitted to mention the promise —or near promise—that was given by the Government when we asked for a White Paper on the subject of Williamsburg, or the approach to the summit. We should like to have a White Paper. In any case, whether or not we have a White Paper, we now want a statement from the Government, because the Prime Minister's declaration on the matter is quite unsatisfactory to the House—and, I am sure, equally unsatisfactory to the country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that she will make a statement.

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties.

Mr. David Steel: On which day next week will the House be told whether or not the Government will cut and run?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman asked that question not expecting an answer, and I shall not disappoint him.

Mr. Edward du Cann: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to undertake to consult opinion widely in the House before the Government themselves discuss the Plowden report, and particularly before they come to a conclusion on the matter?

Mr. Biffen: I recognise the considerable interest that there is in that topic, and I shall bear in mind my right hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Leader of the House take time today to see the Secretary of State for Scotland and find out his reasons for cancelling the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee which was to have taken place in Edinburgh on Monday 16 May? I can tell the Leader of the House the answer. The reason is that the Government will not discuss Scottish unemployment. Is the Secretary of State for Scotland's cut-and-run approach consistent with the resolute approach?

Mr. Biffen: My understanding is that the situation is not quite as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Possibly it is an ideal topic for further consideration through the usual channels.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 90, signed by nearly 200 hon. Members in all parts of the House, on the American corporate tax practice? Is he aware of the damage that is being done to British investments in the United States? Will he arrange for a debate as soon as possible and say what representations the Government are making to the United States Administration?
[That this House believes that the growing practice in individual states of the United States of America of

employing the worldwide reporting system in assessing the tax of corporations doing business in both the United States of America and the United Kingdom is against the spirit of the 1980 Double Taxation Treaty; is of the view that the practice does not reflect the intention of the original Article 9(4) of the Treaty, which would have prohibited the use of the world wide combined reporting system of assessment; and urges Her Majesty's Government to take immediate and urgent steps to press vigorously for an end to this practice by individual states of the United States of America, which can only lead to the establishment of harmful international precedents and to severe damage to British investments in the United States of America.]

Mr. Biffen: I shall refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the point made by my hon. Friend so that he may be acquainted with what representations are being made to the United States authorities. As for an expression of opinion in this House, I should have thought that, as we proceeded with the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, that might well provide an appropriate occasion.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence and well-known powers of persuasion to secure from the Secretary of State for Transport or the Secretary of State for Defence a statement at the earliest possible moment about the accident to freight trains carrying explosives or other material in my constituency in the small hours of this morning? It is a matter of grave concern and nobody knows what the result will be. My constituents are entitled to an answer to that question at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the significance, particularly to the hon. Gentleman, of the point he has just raised and I shall certainly make his anxieties knows to the Secretary of State for Transport; and I will add to them, if I can, my own powers of persuasion.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend consider the situation which has arisen since the new telephone service answering system has been introduced in the House? Not only do constituents now need to make two telephone calls, but, with respect to the honourable officials of the House who are trying to man the telephone answering system, people have to wait an incredible time to receive an answer, and frequently do not get any answer. May I commend to him the suggestion that the system be abolished and that we revert to the old system, which gave a most efficient service?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the matter and be in touch with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a ministerial statement next week about the critical shortage of 100 nursing staff at Lennox Castle hospital, and in particular about the case of an American nurse, Paula Maximo, who has been threatened with deportation or imprisonment by the Home Office as the Department of Employment will not give her a work permit because the Scottish office will not give the health board enough money to employ more nurses? Meanwhile, may I have an assurance that my constituent will not be threatened with deportation or imprisonment while her case is being investigated, at my request, by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to inform me this morning that he would raise that


point. I will look into the matter and contact the various Government Departments involved to see what can be done.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: As we in this Chamber have opportunities to discuss Government policy and to hear what the Opposition has to say, may I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange for a statement or debate as soon as possible on the rating system and the levels of rates? May I tell him that of the three highest spending authorities hitting constituents, Greenwich council is putting its rates up by 59 per cent.? If there is one issue about which people are concerned more than any other it is the level of rates, and they expect this House to provide opportunities for their interests to be represented.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is very fair-minded in these matters, will agree that only recently we had a debate on local government. However, I shall certainly bear in mind his anxiety that these topics should be debated perhaps time and again.

Mr. David Crouch: Did my right hon. Friend hear the Leader of the Opposition speak about the importance of the steel and shipbuilding industries? Will he give us an opportunity to speak out on the importance of Sothebys in art transactions in this country, where we lead the world? May we have an opportunity next week of congratulating the Secretary of State for Trade on the brave action he has taken in securing that trade and that company for this country, and this country alone?

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Clearly this commanding height of the economy is a matter of keen interest in the House. I suggest that my hon. Friend might even try his hand at an early-day motion on the subject.

Mr. Nigel Forman: In the context of the forthcoming debate on arms control and disarmament, is

it not clear that Ministers are wise to be sceptical about the Russian proposal that the British and French strategic deterrents should be included in the intermediate talks, as when the SALT talks were going on the Russians sought to include them in those?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes important paints with admirable brevity. I hope that he will have a chance to amplify them in the debate.

Mr. Tony Marlow: In regard to the recent code of practice put forward by the Commission for Racial Equality, as that organisation is not a democratic or representative organisation, and as the code of practice could have far-reaching effects on the industrial law of this country, is it not absolutely essential that the matter should be debated before it is foisted on the citizen?

Mr. Biffen: I fear that I have nothing further to acid to what I know my hon. Friend considers was a wholly unsatisfactory reply a couple of weeks ago.

BILL PRESENTED

COMPANIES

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, supported by Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Robert Edwards, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Michael Grylls, Mr. Robert McCrindle, Mr. Tom Normanton, Mr. Cyril Smith, and Mr. Mark Wolfson, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the election and responsibilities of directors of companies; to require the circulation of particulars of candidates to the members and the consideration of the appointment of non-executive directors before any election of directors; to make provision in regard to audit committees; and to make other changes in the law relating to companies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 May and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

Orders of the Day — Mobile Homes Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered .

New Clause 1

PARTICULARS OF AGREEMENTS

'(1) This Act applies to any agreement under which a person ("the occupier") is entitled

(a) to station a mobile home on land forming part of a protected site; and
(b) to occupy the mobile home as his only or main residence.

(2) Within three months of the making of an agreement to which this Act applies, the owner of the protected site ("the owner") shall give to the occupier a written statement which

(a) specifies the names and addresses of the parties and the date of commencement of the agreement;
(b) includes particulars of the land on which the occupier is entitled to station the mobile home sufficient to identify it;
(c) sets out the express terms of the agreement;
(d) sets out the terms implied by section (Terms of agreements) (1) below; and
(e) complies with such other requirements as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(3) If the agreement was made before the day on which this Act comes into force, the written statement shall be given within six months of that day.
(4) Any reference in subsection (2) or (3) above to the making of an agreement to which this Act applies includes a reference to any variation of an agreement by virtue of which the agreement becomes one to which this Act applies.
(5) If the owner fails to comply with this section, the occupier may apply to the court for an order requiring the owner so to comply.
(6) Regulations under this section—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and
(b) may make different provision with respect to different cases or descriptions of case, including different provision for different areas.'.—[Sir George Young.]

Brought up and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following:

New clause 2—Terms of agreements.

Government amendment No. 1.

Amendment No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out `mobile' and insert 'park'.

Amendment No. 3, in line 12, leave out 'mobile' and insert 'park'.

Amendment No. 4, in line 18, leave out `mobile' and insert 'park'.

Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 19, leave out `mobile' and insert `park'.

Government amendments Nos. 6 to 9.

Amendment No. 10, in clause 3, page 3, line 15, leave out `mobile' and insert 'park'.

Amendment No. 11, in line 23, leave out 'mobile' and insert 'park'.

Government amendment No. 12.

Amendment No. 13, in line 30, leave out `mobile' and insert 'park'.

Government amendments Nos. 14 to 16.

Amendment No. 17, in clause 5, page 4, line 10, leave out 'mobile' and insert 'park'.

Government amendment No. 18.

Amendment No. 19, in line 19, leave out 'mobile' and insert `park'.

Government amendment No. 20.

Amendment No. 21, in clause 6, line 42, leave out `Mobile' and insert 'Park'.

Government amendments Nos. 22 and 25. Amendment No. 26, in schedule 1, page 6, line 13, leave out `mobile' and insert 'park'.

Amendment No. 27, in line 18 leave out 'mobile' and insert 'park'.

Amendment No. 30, in line 26, leave out 'mobile' and insert 'park'

Amendment No. 34, in page 7, line 1, leave out `mobile' and insert 'park'.

Amendment No. 37, in line 6, leave out `mobile' and insert `park'.

Amendment No. 43, in line 20, leave out `mobile' and insert `park'.

Amendment No. 45, in line 21, leave out 'mobile' and insert 'park'.

Amendment No. 46, in line 24, leave out 'mobile' and insert `park'.

Amendment No. 48, in line 35, leave out 'mobile' and insert 'park'.

Amendment No. 49, in line 36, leave out 'mobile' and insert `park'.

Amendment No. 50, in line 39, leave out 'mobile' and insert 'park'.

Amendment No. 51, in line 41, leave out 'mobile' and insert 'park'.

Amendment No. 52, in line 52, leave out 'mobile' and insert `park'.

Amendment No. 53, in page 8, line 4, leave out `mobile' and insert 'park'.

Government amendments Nos. 54 and 55. Amendment No. 56, in line 11, leave out `mobile' and insert `park'.

Amendment No. 57, in line 14, leave out 'mobile' and insert 'park'.

Sir George Young: These new clauses and amendments arise directly from the discussion in Committee of amendments proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell). I promised in Committee that the Government would look closely at the arguments that my hon. and learned Friend and others had advanced in favour of an approach based on "standard" or "implied" terms.
Following the Committee stage, we issued a consultation letter inviting views on the possibility of incorporating an element of implied terms in the Bill, and on the question of the termination of agreements, to which I shall come later. The consultation letter went to the National Federation of Site Operators, the National Caravan Council, the Mobile Home Residents Association, the local authority associations, the National Consumer Council and a number of other bodies. Copies also went to members of the Committee. With the letter was a group of amendments substantially the same as those now before the House.
We considered carefully the responses of those who commented on the consultation paper in deciding whether to propose these amendments. I am glad to say that we


decided we should proceed. I shall say something about the responses we received, but first I will describe what the new clauses and amendments achieve. They will replace the system of agreements which had previously been the basis of the Bill, and of the 1975 Act before that, with a combination of implied terms and express terms. The terms to be implied by law into all agreements between site owners and residents will be those in part I of schedule 1 to the Bill. They concern principally security of tenure, the right of a resident to sell his mobile home and his right to give it to a member of his family. These implied terms will apply from the date of commencement to all agreements between site owners and residents, whatever those agreements may say.
The site owner will be obliged to provide residents with a written statement setting out the implied terms and the express terms of his agreement with the resident. The express terms are those which site owner and resident have agreed between them — on subjects not covered by implied terms. Either the resident or the site owner may then apply to the court within six months of the date on which the written statement is provided to ask that any of the express terms be varied or deleted from the agreement or to ask that terms concerning the subjects listed in part II of schedule 1 should be added to the agreement. The written statement will also have to comply with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Those are the bare bones of the approach set out in the new clauses and amendments. We have accepted that an element of implied terms will further strengthen the protection which the Bill provides for residents. But we have been careful to limit the scope of implied terms to those subjects that need to be covered by them. We must not push the balance of the Bill too far against site owners. The new approach will leave them free to negotiate with their residents on a local basis those matters that should be negotiated locally—on pitch fees, on the services that the site owner will provide and on the details of the resident's obligations. At the same time, the written statement the site owner must provide will set out all the terms of the agreement between site owner and resident so that both sides may know the basis of their relationship. In that respect, we believe that the written statement can serve much the same purpose as the written agreement in the Bill.
The representatives of site owners expressed their concern, in their response to the consultation paper, that the approach embodied in these new clauses and amendments would prove more cumbersome and confusing than that of the Bill up to now. I understand the basis of their concern, but I believe that they are worrying too much. The site owner's written statement will not be the same as the written agreement for which the Bill currently provides, but it can achieve much the same result. As I have said, it will set out all the terms of the agreement between site owner and resident—those that are implied by law and those they have negotiated—for both to see. As the scope of implied terms is limited to essentials, site owners will still have the flexibility they need on other subjects. I ask my hon. Friends who speak for the site owners to tell them not to be over-anxious about the new clauses. They will not harm the interests of the great majority of responsible site owners.
I very much hope that the new approach we are now proposing will be warmly welcomed by those whose main interest is in the position of residents under the Bill. The

Government have moved a long way on the Bill in response to the views that have been put to us in this House and in another place. In particular, these new clauses will meet the anxiety expressed by members of the Committee on the Bill that some residents would never gain the most basic rights that the Bill provides, either because they would never be offered a statutory agreement or because they would be prevailed upon in some way to refuse the agreement offered to them. Residents will not now be able to lose their basic rights in that way. They will be guaranteed security of tenure and the right to sell on site from the moment the Bill comes into force. The date of commencement is the subject of another Government amendment that we shall come to later.
The Bill will make a significant difference to the lives of many people who live on mobile home sites. Without the amendments we are now considering, the Bill would strengthen the position of mobile home residents in a number of important ways. With them, it will improve upon that protection still more. I do not believe that it will do so in a way that will adversely affect the interests of site owners. We have strived to retain a fair balance between the interests of residents and of site owners. These new clauses and amendments will keep that balance. The Government have responded in a positive way to the arguments put to us in Committee and elsewhere. I hope that hon. Members will respond equally positively to what the Government have done. I commend the new clauses and amendments to the House.

Mr. Ted Graham: I express wholeheartedly the deep appreciation felt by Opposition members of the Committee for the meaningful way in which the Minister set about the task of consulting not just members of the Committee and the House, but the whole range of people outside who have a deep interest in these matters. It was clear to the Minister in Committee that he did not have many friends. I believe that everyone in Committee welcomed the improvement that the unamended Bill was on the present position, but it was clear from the arithmetic that, unless the Minister decided sensibly to do what he did and rewrite the Bill substantially, he and the Government would be in trouble. On Report, I often have to say that the Minister has given us nothing in Committee, that he promised to take the Bill away and study it but has brought back little. On this occasion I am certain that the Minister and his advisers will be aware and, I hope, Conservative Members will agree that the Minister has done a good job in carrying out the wishes of members of the Committee.
There are two substantial new clauses and a range of consequential amendments. We should put on record the changes that have taken place since the Bill was in Committee. I do not say that all that we aspired to has been produced, but the improvements that we sought are contained substantially in new clauses 1 and 2. The Opposition are grateful for that. Although hon. Members will properly make the points that they wish to make, I am sure that there is substantial if not complete agreement on what we are doing.
I took careful note of the Minister's remarks when he said that in seeking to carry out the Committee's wishes a balance had to be kept and that he had to ensure that that balance was not tilted too far against the site owners. Before this exercise was undertaken it was felt by many people that the balance had been against the occupiers of caravans and mobile homes. The Minister was right when


he said that the last thing we wanted to do was to make the many site owners who are, if not impeccable, good business men, landlords and people who look after the countryside feel that they were being harassed by legislation.
Under the Minister's guidance, the House has substantially removed the uncertainty and opportunity for disagreement and misinterpretation that existed before today. We now have an objective test of occupation. It is a major advance. Instead of having to rely upon what is in the agreement, by the use of the implied terms method we have a substantial easement of the worry as to precisely what, first, was the right and benefit of the site owner and, secondly, the right and benefit of the occupier. Instead of depending upon the written agreement, if there is conflict between the implied terms and the written agreement, the implied terms will be sovereign and will prevail. There is much more. Only a court can terminate an agreement for breach. That has connotations which we shall come to in later amendments and which I shall deal with then.
I am grateful for the fact that the Minister has referred to—when the amendment is moved we shall pay tribute to his sense of urgency—the date of commencement. The date of commencement is crucial. I have been given information from one or two places about attempts being made by certain site owners to try to protect, if not to anticipate, their interests, in my view punitively and unfairly, against occupiers.
The earlier commencement date will not just mean that the future is secure; it brings forward, even if only by a few days, the protection of the new legislation for the thousands of people who are already living in these circumstances. I believe that the changes have been designed to deal with some recalcitrant site owners who might otherwise ignore the legislation and their obligations under the legislation.
4 pm
There are hon. Members and noble Lords in another place who, as always, will speak on behalf of the site owners. The site owners were well served by the members of the Committee who put their point of view, and they have nothing to fear from the legislation. I can well imagine that they may be apprehensive about what the legislation will mean in practice, but I fully accept that, as the Minister has said, the purpose of the legislation and the changes is to make the law simpler and more unified in its approach. Furthermore, under the new clauses, site owners will be spared the expense and trouble of numerous court applications. There will be flexibility on many matters of importance to the site owners.
It would be churlish for the House to debate at length the details of the new clauses and the amendments, because in essence they represent the substantial fulfilment of a commitment to make implied terms the basis upon which the legal obligations of the site owner and the legal protection of the occupant are to be safeguarded.
I was interested this morning to listen to Jeremy Mitchell, the director of the National Consumer Council. The last brief that he sent me was about Sunday trading. It was not to my liking, and I said some harsh words about the importance that he attached to his researches on that matter. However, I endorse all that he said this morning about the benefits of the new clauses.
Labour hon. Members are satisfied that, as far as it is possible for legislation to ease the worries that have been brought to the attention of Members on both sides of the House, those worries will be eased. Many hon. Members will have seen an excellent dossier from the Daily Star listing many of the ways in which the unfortunate occupants of pitches have been affected by the unscrupulous activities of a small minority of site owners. The amendments will remove any doubts that may have existed. If the new clauses favour one side more than the other, I am satisfied that they are to the benefit of the occupants rather than of the site owners, although they do not lay any onerous or punitive duties upon the site owner.
We are grateful for the new clauses and the Governments amendments, and we give them a warm welcome.

Mr. David Mudd: The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) has been fair and pragmatic in his approach to the Report stage of the Bill. As parliamentary consultant to the National Federation of Site Operators, I confirm that I had every opportunity in Committee to present the arguments and the concern of that organisation. I shall therefore now detain the House only briefly on two points of clarification.
I seek clarification of Government amendment No. 54:
The sums payable by the occupier".
Can my hon. Friend confirm that the sums referred to in that context are pitch fees? If not, can he tell us how he interprets the word "sums"?

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I come to this debate rather late in the day, and if I cover ground that has already been dealt with in Committee, I apologise to the House.
I welcome the new clauses. Like the rest of the Bill, they seem to strike a reasonable balance between the interests of the site owner and those of the occupiers of mobile homes. Nevertheless, I have been in touch with a number of mobile home residents associations, and they are clearly still concerned about what the effects of the Bill may be.
First, there is some concern about the pitch fee. It is believed that the Bill in its present form will still permit an annual review which, in practice, is likely to be an annual increase. There is concern that there is no machinery for arbitration other than through the courts. That point is also made in a leaflet from the Mobile Home Residents Association, which points out:
Authentic independent control over pitch rent charges does not exist.
The association wonders why the services of a local rent officer had no place in the thinking behind the legislation. I find myself broadly in agreement with the association. Recourse to the courts is expensive, and if the mobile home owner must go to court in order to prove his point, he will be at a disadvantage in relation to the site operator.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister can tell us what exactly is meant in subsection (2) of new clause 2 — Terms of agreements—where it states:
The court may, on the application of either party meet within six months of the giving of the statement under section (Particulars of agreements) (2) above, order that there shall be implied in the agreement terms concerning the matters mentioned in Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act.
What is meant by the words,
implied in the agreement terms"?


Is part II so widely drawn that almost any matters can come within its remit, or is there some need for clarification? Home owners are obliged to restore or improve their mobile homes if the site operator so decides, even though no ground leaseholder or freeholder can tell a home owner to renovate his dwelling. Why is the site operator given that power over the occupier of the mobile home?
Some mobile home residents associations feel that residents associations might have been included in the legislation as authoritative bodies with which site owners could be expected to negotiate. They feel, as I do, that to some extent they have been neglected. Associations have proved to be a most effective way by which mobile home occupiers have been able to make their grievances known to site owners and to get some redress for them. The fact that they are not specifically mentioned in the Bill leaves residents uneasy that the legislation may still be somewhat unbalanced in favour of the site owner as opposed to mobile home resident.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: I am glad of this opportunity to give a warm welcome to the new clauses and Government amendments in this group. Like other hon. Members on both sides, I believe that the Bill now provides a good balance between site operators and mobile home residents, although I wish to raise one or two detailed matters on a later group of amendments. As a result of the Bill and the changes brought about by the new clauses, on behalf of my constituents and others who have written to me and indeed personally, I am deeply grateful that there will be automatic implication into every agreement of the fundamental terms necessary to achieve that balance.
Mobile home owners will have automatic security of tenure for so long as the site operator has control of the site, which, in the vast majority of cases, means indefinitely. They will have the important right to sell their mobile homes on site. They will no longer have to offer a right of first refusal—a pre-emption right—to the site operator. Moreover, the maximum commission that can be charged to the owner on a sale will be reduced from the present 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. Furthermore they will have the right not to have their pitch fees raised more than once a year. That will lead to far more orderly conduct of sites and more balanced negotiations.
In that context, I recommend that mobile home owners join their local residents association. If there is no site association affiliated to the Mobile Home Residents Association, they would be extremely wise to set one up —not to gain advantage over the site operator, but to have the assistance of a sensible body that can represent their views and reach a fair and beneficial agreement to the advantage of mobile home residents and the good site operators who predominate and are to be found overwhelmingly in the National Caravan Council and the National Federation of Site Operators. If residents find that proposed clauses are not satisfactory or to their liking, once banded together in that way it will not be an overwhelming task for them to negotiate and, in the rare cases, to go to the county court for adjudication of what are fair and proper terms.
In welcoming the new clauses I express grateful thanks to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who

is notable, because it was his private Member's Bill which in 1975, with the assistance of the Labour Government, laid the foundations for the protection of mobile home owners. The way in which the Department and Ministers with departmental responsibility have approached the Bill has been exemplary. They have been prepared to listen carefully to representations from all sections of the industry, site operators and residents. I have also had great help from the National Consumer Council in my suggestion for model terms.
The proposals now embodied in the new clauses achieve all that I had hoped to achieve through standard and model terms, implying them into every agreement. That will be of enormous benefit. I wish to raise a specific point on a later group of amendments which will then complete the fully balanced package, but I wholeheartedly welcome the new clauses and thank the Ministers responsible for the open-minded part that they have taken in framing this sensible legislation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have recently participated in two very late night sittings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, and I am conscious that Members who served in a long Committee stage do not greatly welcome eleventh-hour contributions on Report from those who were not members of the Committee. Nevertheless, I seek the indulgence of those who served in the Committee vineyards on this Bill to comment briefly on the amendments, some of which are in my name, in this group.
In a sense, I have two interests to disclose. First, my constituency has by far the largest concentration of both American and British air forces and a very large number of mobile home parks and, as I shall describe them, park homes. Inevitably, I see a great deal of the residents and a good deal of the owners of the parks. I am conscious that over the years there has been concern about the arrangements between the two groups, although in my experience relations are usually good and it would be wrong to suggest that the country is littered with mobile home residents or tenants doing battle with rapacious owners. Nevertheless, problems exist and I wish to add my voice to the many who have welcomed the legislation and the balance that it has struck.
I wish to refer to one group of amendments in my name and to a more general point arising from the Government's new clauses. First, as was suggested in Committee, I believe that the title of the Bill and the term "mobile homes" should be changed. I think that it is common ground that the term is a complete misnomer. As long ago as 1977—some years after I ceased to be a Minister at the Department of the Environment—the Department published a report on mobile homes in which it clearly said:
In many ways the term 'mobile homes' is a misnomer. In practice residential mobile homes are not usually moved about once they have been installed on site.
The Committee was well aware of the point. The term "mobile homes" does not describe the residences with which we are dealing.
Subsequently, your colleague in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong), when he was Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, attended a convention of the National


Federation of Site Operators and put to it a challenge on behalf of the Government. He told members of the federation that it was high time that they thought of a more suitable name and emphasised that it was important to do so. Since then, the National Federation of Site Operators and the National Caravan Council have been urged many times by civil servants at the Department to suggest an alternative name, and the invitation was pressed in the Department's consultation paper on the 1975 legislation.
The industry reacted responsibly, issuing questionnaires to all who manufactured or traded in these residences and to tenants who lived in them. It also consulted the park operators. One clear conclusion was reached. Of all the new names that could be suggested and, indeed, rehearsed by the industry, the tenants and everybody else, the most appropriate was "park homes". I think that that makes a good deal of sense, because the land upon which a large number of these homes are located is identified as a protected site and in planning and local authority licensing terms it is known as a park. The common term for such land is "park". We talk of a caravan park, or a mobile home park.
Consequently, this suggestion was made on behalf of the National Federation of Site Operators and the National Caravan Council, and I am glad to say that it is now coming into general use within the industry. This is what the misnamed "mobile homes" are now called. The only major problem that the industry and the tenants have is that the Government insist on continuing to call these homes by a name that simply misdescribes them.
When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) — who declared his interest in the NFSO, as I declare some interest in the National Caravan Council—made an eminently sensible suggestion in Committee, I was surprised that the best that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State could say was that there were various problems about this but that he would go away and think about it. His Department has been not only thinking about this, but leading the thought process since 1976. I should have thought that, even though the speed of thought in the Department is sometimes glacial, it had had enough time to arrive at a conclusion, which I suspect could be a depressing conclusion. I put it to my hon. Friend that the industry and the majority of tenants certainly want the amendment, because it is an accurate description. Nobody has the right to pre-empt this term, of course. However, I should like to know the reason for the Government not being willing to get away from the misnomer and to use an accurate description.
My second point is more general. I do not find new clauses 1 and 2 models of clarity, although I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in welcoming their main purport. I do not care for implied legislation. I have had some experience in government of implied legislation. I know that there are plenty of precedents for it in the Housing Acts and elsewhere.
What it means to a layman, however—I am not a lawyer— is that, notwithstanding what arrangements a man makes with another when he signs a contract or reaches an understanding, something else shall be implied into their agreement. I do not think that that is a very responsible approach, because it starts with the assumption that one or other of the two parties to an agreement—

perhaps they are unequal in some respects—is careless, stupid or negligent, and somehow the great-grand-daddy of the state—Parliament—must rush in and tell them what they really meant to do. I do not find that a very attractive constitutional or legal approach. It would be far better to make arrangements whereby people have private contracts between one another which say what they mean and which are enforceable in the terms of those contracts, not as a result of some imported inference blown in by a sideways breeze.
I find it difficult, in principle, to accept legislation by inference unless there is no alternative. Therefore, it is up to me to suggest an alternative. I am pleased to do so on behalf of the National Caravan Council, with which I have some vague connection, by referring my hon. Friend to the response that the council made to the letter of consultation that was sent out by his Department on 17 March.
In passing, I may say that I am anxious to see this legislation on the statute book. However, I must say that only now, when we are nine tenths of the way through the parliamentary procedures on legislation that affects every site operator and mobile home occupier in the country, is the industry asked to consider complicated new clauses and the whole business of legislation by inference. This leaves the industry a very short time in which to take advice and address itself to the Government's suggestions. However, being diligent, it was able to take advice and it has come back with what I think is a very sensible proposal.
The council recognised the Government's intention. I think that we all share the Government's intention, which is to safeguard the tenant. However, two particular anxieties were expressed very eloquently in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, who at the material time was managing to serve on two Committees. He would make a splendid contribution to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and then nip along the Corridor and make a powerful contribution to this Bill. I would have liked to do the same, but I felt that I was unable to display quite the same intellectual dexterity and physical stamina.
My hon. and learned Friend was concerned about the situation where the occupier, unwittingly or unknowingly, fails to respond to the offer of an agreement made by a park operator in accordance with the provisions of the Bill and does not get an offer of an agreement at all because the park owner fails to comply as he should with the provisions of the Bill.
The Government have addressed themselves to both these problems, but what they have not dealt with is a third real-life situation — where the occupier consciously decides that he does not want an agreement arising from the provisions of the Bill. There are cases in which an occupier may prefer not to enter into a new agreement because what he has already got is a great deal better than either the expressed or the implied agreement that will arise from this Bill. I do not suggest that there is a majority, but I do say that a large minority of people who have been living for many years on park home sites have been able to establish very good arrangements with very good site operators. When they look at the terms of the Bill, either expressed or implied, they may find that there is a worsening of their situation if they enter into such an agreement.
I suspect that my hon. Friend will say that the implied and expressed terms will provide a floor, and above that


they keep everything. I can only say that the National Caravan Council, which is a responsible body, has no particular axe to grind here because it has an interest in the tenants who buy and live in the park homes and in the site operators who provide the land on which they are put. However, I am advised by the council that a number of people are very concerned about this situation and, unfortunately, neither of the new clauses deals with it. The council made a suggestion to the Government in good faith following receipt of the consultation document.

Mr. Lyell: Can my hon. Friend give one instance of how a mobile home owner could be worse off by reason of the implied terms that are now included in the Bill? I cannot think of one.

Mr. Griffiths: I have not come into the Chamber weighed down with evidence, so I cannot do that. I can only say that responsible members of the National Caravan Council with whom I have discussed the matter believe that mobile home owners could be worse off in some instances. A number of tenants have expressed their misgivings to me. If there is any point in so doing, I shall be glad to bring my hon. and learned Friend's attention to their anxieties at the end of the debate. Suffice to say that anxieties exist, which led the council to submit an alternative set of proposals. It proposes that clause 2(4) should be amended instead of adding two new clauses to the Bill.
If the council's proposal were accepted, subsection (4) would read:
If, where the owner has offered the occupier an agreement under this Act within the required period, the occupier fails either to make an application under subsection (3) within six months of the offer or declines the offer in writing within that period, the offer should be treated as accepted.
That would be a belt-and-braces provision. It would cover the occupier who failed to make an application and the occupier who declined the offer in writing.
It seems that such a provision would cover the three examples that I envisaged. In the first instance, if an occupier failed to respond to the offer of an agreement he would still benefit from all the rights in the agreement, if necessary by reference to the courts. It seems that failure to respond would be covered by the council's proposed amendment.
Secondly, I envisaged an occupier not receiving an offer of an agreement from a park operator, who deliberately or otherwise failed to comply with the Bill. Under the council's proposed amendment, the occupier would be able to apply to the court to order the making of an agreement under clause 2. That agreement, as set out in clause 1(3)(a) and (b), must comply with the requirements of the schedule, including the terms of part II of the schedule. The agreement would have to be in a form that the courts considered just and equitable in the circumstances. The case of the occupier who did not get an offer of an agreement would also be covered amply by the council's amendment.
The third instance is one which I believe is not covered by the new clauses. It concerns the resident who, for various reasons, prefers not to go into one of the new agreements. In that instance he would have the right, after full and proper consideration, to decline the offer. To avoid doubt, he would have to do so in writing. I do not understand why he should not be able to do that. If he does

not want a new agreement, why should he not be permitted to write, "I do not want a new agreement because I am satisfied with what I have"?
Surely the case for adopting the council's proposed amendment is conclusive when its merits are contrasted with the rather complicated and, in some circumstances, impractical new clauses that the Government mave introduced. I am in no doubt about the purpose of the new clauses and the purpose for which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead argued in Committee. I am sure that he is delighted that the Government have accepted his argument.
I am in no doubt about the intention of the new clauses. Indeed, I support them because I think that the intention is just. On the other hand, there is a simpler and more comprehensible approach. The way that the council suggests the Government should go would deal with the small minority who may prefer to stay in their present position, whereas the Government's new clauses would not deal with that preference.
I apologise to hon. Members who sat through the deliberations in Committee for detaining them this afternoon. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, when he replies to the debate, to respond to the two principal issues that I have raised.

Sir Albert Costain: I always respect the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) but I was confused by his remarks about implied legislation when he directed his attention to implied contracts. It seems that the effect of his implied contracts would be exactly the same as implied legislation.
There are a number of caravan parks in the area which I represent and there is a general wish to do all that we can to encourage site owners to develop their parks. Mobile homes constitute a form of housing which has a positive contribution to make. Many owners use their mobile homes as weekend or holiday homes. When they are not using them for that purpose they often sub-let to their friends. As the owners near retirement age many of them decide to make the mobile homes their permanent home.
When this proposed legislation is put into effect I hope that the Government will publish a clear description of the rights of tenants and owners, especially when there are legislative differences between a mobile home which is someone's sole residence and a mobile home which is a second home. There is still some confusion and it is an issue which arises in constituencies that adjoin the coast.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The Minister was quick off the mark at 3.45 and I did not hear his opening address. I apologise for my absence. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) for his lucid summary. If he has it right, which I am sure he has, I welcome the new clauses. However, like the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), I find them somewhat complicated. For example, does "any agreement" mean any verbal agreement? The original clause made it clear that the site owner had to provide the incoming tenant with an agreement when requested to do so.
As a supporter of the Bill that was introduced by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is now the Secretary of State for the Environmennt, I accept that the new clauses are a great step forward. They offer many


advantages. For example, they specify the content of the agreement far more tightly than the original clause, and introduce an element of implied terms. However, there are still serious gaps that should be mentioned, and one or two have been itemised already.
First, there are the sanctions that are available to occupiers if the site owner fails to comply with the requirements of the clauses. It is a pity that occupiers will still have to go to the courts. As about 25 per cent. of the permanent occupiers of mobile homes are elderly retired people, I think that many occupiers will still be deterred from going through that ordeal. I do not wish to criticise the law or the legal profession but people baulk at having to go to court because of the bills and the problems involved. I wish we had been able to simplify the procedure. Perhaps that is asking too much. I still think it would be possible to find simpler methods of dealing with disputes than having to go to court.
The Government amendments do nothing to end the scandal of premium payments. Many tenants have complained over the years about this payment, which can be compared to key money in the housing sector. I agree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that it would be better to use the rent officer in cases where pitch fees and amenity charges are in dispute. This will be a continuing sore.

Mr. Graham: The hon. Member will be aware that that point was made in Committee. I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) made a renewed plea about it. The Government felt unable to accept the amendment and prefer to rely upon the use of an arbitrator. Although the function of an arbitrator may be to act fairly, when he is appointed people question whether he is on one side or the other. A rent officer is clearly impartial and is also experienced in trying to get a balance. I hope that the Minister will say something helpful about access to a rent officer, although it is not covered in the amendments.

Mr. Ross: I am grateful for those comments. I understand that this was dealt with in great detail in Committee.
There are a number of these parks in my constituency. The proprietor of a park which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newbury insists that those who go on to that site shall purchase their mobile homes from one of two suppliers. One of the suppliers has gone into receivership. A problem has arisen about guarantees on essential repairs and fittings. When the regulations are drawn up, I hope that a way will be found of dealing with such cases.
There should be a wider range of choice for those who wish to purchase mobile homes. They spend a lot of money, for example, £8,000 to £10,000, and then may find themselves in difficulty through no fault of their own. I am taking the matter up with the accountants acting for the receivers and, in fairness, they are trying to see what they can do. They are under no obligation to do anything. The site owner, who is no doubt getting commission on the sale of the homes, should bear some responsibility, but he seems to be able to avoid it.
I welcome the changes that have been made. The Government have gone a long way down the road that many of us have been advocating for years. Therefore, they are to be congratulated.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I join in the general welcome that has been given to the Bill as it has emerged from Standing Committee. I welcome also the Government's new clauses. Whatever the final shape of the Bill, it will lead to a substantial improvement for mobile home residents, which we all welcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) have referred to the difficulty about jurisdiction over disputes and about the assessment of rents. The Bill provides that the courts shall have universal jurisdiction in respect of all these matters. There is a provision that the court shall include an arbitrator, where there has been a written agreement to do so, consented to by both sides. It will be difficult to find an arbitrator who will be accepted by both sides. In many cases one side or the other will not agree to an arbitrator and will, as part of the game which may be played, insist upon a court. That will mean an expensive process for many mobile home residents and mobile home residents associations.
4.45 pm
That would not affect the main mobile home residents' association in my constituency at Restavon park because, wisely over the years, it has collected money and has substantial funds that would enable it to support itself should the need arise to refer to a court. However, most associations would find themselves in great difficulty, as I understand it, under the Bill if there were a dispute that could not be resolved amicably. The suggestion that a rent officer or somebody at a much lower level than the courts should decide these matters, perhaps on an informal basis, is attractive. Certainly it would be more economical.
I am not wholly persuaded by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) about implied terms. In my experience most of these agreements tend to be unsophisticated. It is important that those who wish to obtain the benefits of the new legislation should have read into their agreements, as it were, provisions such as are contained in the Bill and which cannot easily be departed from. This is a paternalistic measure. It will also assist when disputes arise. There will be many occasions when the agreements are not satisfactory. Thank goodness the implied terms will come to the rescue of those who have to construe the agreements. On the whole, this is a good proposal which I welcome.

Sir George Young: Before I deal with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), may I congratulate him on his stamina? He has gone through two long nights on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and it is a tribute to his energy that he is here dealing with amendments to a different piece of legislation.
May I also commend him on his diligence in having picked up every reference to the phrase "mobile home" in the text of the Bill? I am afraid that we have rather played havoc with his amendments by introducing two new clauses in place of clauses 1 and 2. As he knows, strikingly similar amendments were tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd). We had a lively discussion on those amendments and I promised that we would consider further the arguments and the case for change.
We have looked very carefully at the case for changing the naming of mobile homes in the Bill, but I am afraid I have to tell the House that I cannot recommend that a change be made. As my hon. Friend knows, responsibility rests with Ministers, not with civil servants. In considering the arguments, we have sought to judge the case for a change of name by two criteria. The first is whether the change would achieve any positive benefit; the second, whether it might do any harm.
What benefits would a change of name provide? I agree with my hon. Friend that most modern mobile homes are not mobile in any general sense. They are, of course, more mobile than ordinary houses, as the Bill acknowledges by providing for the costs of resiting them should the need arise. They are also dealt with in planning law in a way that recognises this mobility. Neither of these considerations need inhibit a change of name but I think it is important to bear them in mind when we are considering how appropriate the present designation is.
I acknowledge that site owners believe that a change would help to improve the image of mobile homes. They feel that "park home" sounds better than "mobile home". I entirely sympathise with those who wish to give mobile homes a better image, one that is more in keeping with the high standard of accommodation that modern mobile homes provide. A change of name might help to bring that image up to date. However, if that is so, there is absolutely nothing to stop a site owner or anybody else referring to a mobile home as a park home if they want to. I have made that point before, and I repeat it because it is important. The wording in legislation does not need to be the same as that in everyday use, and often it is not. Much housing legislation refers to accommodation units, dwelling houses, buildings and parts of buildings, whereas we talk about houses, flats and rooms. If site owners and others want to talk about park homes—some already do so—they do not need the wording of the legislation to be changed.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: That is right, but my hon. Friend will recognise that in every site owner's office there will have to be a notice conveying to the residents that there is legislation on this matter and under the signature of an assistant secretary in the Department there will be the words "Mobile Homes Act 1983". Therefore, the wrong name will continue. On every agreement there will be a reference to the legislation. My hon. Friend cannot get away from the fact that the Government and Parliament will be perpetuating the wrong name while the industry is trying to bring about the right name.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. Any reference to legislation will have to mention the Mobile Homes Act 1975 or 1983. None the less, the designation of the site, which is what most people think of rather than the title of the legislation, could be such-and-such a park homes site rather than a mobile homes site. The designation in everyday use is not inhibited by what the Act of Parliament says. It is not essential to change the Bill's terminology to change the image of mobile homes.
There is also a danger that a change of name in the Bill would be confusing. Everyone knows what a mobile home is. The phrase has been used in previous legislation. We cannot use the Bill, even if we wanted to, to change the references to "mobile home" in what remains of the Mobile Homes Act 1975—particularly sections 7 to 10

of that Act — because those sections are outside the scope of the Bill. Even if we could, the 1975 Act is known by everyone who has come across it as the Mobile Homes Act. Those concerned know what the subject matter is, and they will know that the Mobile Homes Act 1983, as I hope the Bill will become, is about the same thing. However, there could be problems if they were then presented with a "Park Homes Act" that followed logically from the Mobile Homes Act 1975. If possible, we should avoid that.
I concede that "mobile home" is not completely appropriate, but "park home" is not perfect either. I can think of many sites with mobile homes on them that could not be called park homes. If we asked people outside this building, or inside it, what a park home was, I suspect that they would come up with a different answer from what my hon. Friends have in mind. The phrase is more likely to produce an image of an institution or a country house than a mobile home. "Park home" is itself misleading. For that reason there are strong arguments for sticking with the legislative terminology to which we have grown accustomed. It would be confusing to change it now. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendments.
My hon. Friend also referred to the speed of consultation. I agree with what he said. We had to consult quickly. My hon. Friend knows the reasons why. The protection under the 1975 Act runs out in the autumn. We were most anxious to put the legislation on the statute book, and with summer approaching fast and the Bill having to go back to another place we did not have much time to consult. I am grateful to the site operators for responding within the time limit, and I fully acknowledge the inconvenience that that might have caused.
My hon. Friend referred to existing agreements that might give greater protection than that afforded under implied terms. I am inclined to agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell). I do not see how the Bill would make people worse off. Let us assume for the sake of argument that there is an existing agreement that goes way beyond what the implied terms provide, and that the site owner has voluntarily conceded those additional terms. Having done that, the site owner is not likely to go to the courts and use the implied terms under the Bill to take away rights that he has already given.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds was not able to produce an example of anything in the Bill under the implied terms that took away rights that already existed. I agree with him that the implied terms are a floor below which nothing shall go. If people want to give extra rights on top of that, there is nothing to stop that. I do not honestly see how the protection in the Bill can make anyone worse off.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that, at least in principle, if a site owner who had over the years provided very good terms—indeed better terms—were to decide after the Bill became law that he wanted to reduce the standard of provision to the level of the implied or expressed terms of the legislation, there would be nothing to stop him going to the court and achieving that?

Sir George Young: But he could do that, anyway. When the agreement ran out he could introduce a new agreement that was more restrictive. He could do that independently of whether the Bill hits the statute book. It


is unlikely that anyone will be worse off under the legislation. I cannot envisage the scenario where that might be the case.
My hon. Friend referred to some alternative approaches. If he had tabled amendments on them, we could have debated them. However, he could not get round one situation that we talked about in Committee, which is when a site owner provides someone with a written agreement and then puts pressure on him to write a letter saying that he forgoes his rights under that agreement. That matter was raised in Committee. The approach that my hon. Friend described does not get round that. The site owner might put pressure on people, and they might write a letter saying that they did not want a written agreement, in which case they would forgo the protection that they now get under the implied terms approach.
I very much welcome what the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) said. I am grateful to him for his endorsement of the strategy on which the Government are embarked. My hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) referred to the rent officer. One has to be absolutely clear that we are not talking about tenants. We are talking about owner-occupiers who own their dwellings, but who rent the pitch. The rent officer has no experience of dealing with pitch fees. That is not his territory.
A second and much more important point is that the regime of rent control has dried up the supply of rented accommodation. The Government are most anxious that there should not be a similar scarcity of supply because of the introduction of a rent control regime on mobile home sites. We set our faces against rent control when it comes to that. We believe that there is a role for the market. We are anxious that more people should provide such sites. Giving the rent officer powers to control pitch fees would act as a serious deterrent to anyone contemplating an investment in such a dwelling.

Mr. Graham: The Minister fairly says that the rent officer has no experience of fixing pitch fees. No category of officer has experience of fixing pitch fees. Our argument is that, of all the people who might be able to bring their experience to bear on the fixing of a rent between an owner and a tenant, the rent officer appears to be the best qualified.

Sir George Young: If one conceded the hon. Gentleman's point—I do not—he would still come up against the second point, which is more important. We do not wish a rent control regime to be introduced into this area of operation because of its impact on supply. Rent officers could develop the expertise if they were asked to do so, but I can think of other professions that might do it better than the rent officers. The important point is that that regime would have a dramatic effect on investment. We do not wish it to be introduced here.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is a concept of fair rents there is also a concept of fair pitch fees? In those terms, could not one look at this proposal?

Sir George Young: We have fair rents. If my hon. Friend reads the report of the Select Committee that has

examined this matter, he will see that they have had an effect on investment in that the return that he gets from a fair rent is not perceived by a landlord to be a fair return on his investment. As a result there has been substantial disinvestment in the private rented sector. There is a risk of that happening if we let the rent officers loose on pitch fees.
There is an important point of principle. The Government are most anxious that we should not provide a deterrent against investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has been in correspondence with my Department about mobile homes. I am grateful to him for the interest that he has shown in the subject. I hope that he will be able to assure his constituents who live on mobile home sites that the Bill gives them valuable additional protection and that they will benefit from the legislation that the Government have introduced. I hope that he will take every opportunity to explain the advantages that we are conferring on them.
5 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne asked what is meant by "sums payable" in amendment No. 54. As he guessed, they refer to pitch fees and any other charges that the site owner wants to stipulate in the agreement.
I was also asked about part II of schedule 1, which provides a list of matters concerning which the courts can be asked to imply terms. It does not set out the details of those terms because they will vary according to the circumstances of the case. The courts will have to consider that when deciding what arrangements to make.
I was grateful for what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead said. He has played a key role in entirely reshaping the Bill. I say that with feeling. He has done so in an exemplary way, by persuasion and argument, and the Bill is infinitely the better for his efforts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) asked about holiday homes. They are excluded from this legislation. If someone wants to convert a holiday home into a main residence, he must secure the consent of the site operator to do so. More important than that, we intend to produce an explanatory booklet about the Bill as soon as possible after the Royal Assent. It will make it clear that the Bill does not apply to holiday caravan owners unless they agree with the site owner that they should take up residence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington asked about the courts. As I think he said, we provide for avoiding the courts if both sides agree. Clause 5 defines the court as the arbitrator when the parties have agreed in writing. That deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight about the cost of going to court. It is inevitable in any legislation that confers rights on people that when those rights are exercised people will end up in court. If one wants to avoid the court, one should simply not give people rights. That would not be a satisfactory answer in this case.
I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised. I am glad that most hon. Members favour the Government's new clauses and amendments and I hope that the House will pass them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

TERMS OF AGREEMENTS

'(1) In any agreement to which this Act applies there shall be implied the terms set out in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act; and this subsection shall have effect notwithstanding any express term of the agreement.
(2) The court may, on the application of either party made within six months of the giving of the statement under section (Particulars of agreements) (2) above, order that there shall be implied in the agreement terms concerning the matters mentioned in Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act.
(3) The court may, on the application of either party made within the said period of six months, by order vary or delete any express term of the agreement.
(4) On an application under this section, the court shall make such provision as the court considers just and equitable in the circumstances.'—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

DUTY TO OFFER AGREEMENTS

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out Clause 1.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Clause 2

PROVISIONS FOR SECURING THE MAKING OF AGREEMENTS

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 2, line 23, leave out Clause 2.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Clause 3

SUCCESSORS IN TITLE

Amendments made: No. 7, line 6, leave out 'under this Act' and insert
`to which this Act applies'.

No. 8, in page 3, line 10, leave out 'under this Act' and insert
`to which this Act applies'.

No. 9, in page 3, line 14, leave out 'under this Act' and insert
'to which this Act applies'.

No. 12, in page 3, line 26, leave out 'under this Act' and insert
`to which this Act applies'.

No. 14, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'complies with the requirements' and insert
'includes terms implied by virtue'—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Clause 4

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 3, line 34, leave out `made under it' and insert `to which it applies'.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Clause 5

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 4, line 2, leave out `made under it' and insert `to which it applies'.

No. 18, in page 4, leave out lines 12 to 14.

No. 20, in page 4, line 30 at end insert—
'(1A) In relation to an agreement to which this Act applies


(a) any reference in this Act to the owner includes a reference to any person who is bound by and entitled to the benefit of the agreement by virtue of subsection (1) of section 3 above; and
(b) subject to subsection (4) of that section, any reference in this Act to the occupier includes a reference to any person who is entitled to the benefit of and bound by the agreement by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) of that section.'.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Clause 6

SHORT TITLE, REPEALS, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 5, leave out lines 1 to 3.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 5, line 5, leave out 'three months' and insert 'one week'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 24.

Sir George Young: These amendments were trailed in the speech of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) a short while ago and they deal with the commencement date.
We have taken the unusual step of proposing that this Bill should come into force only one week after Royal Assent to minimise the danger that site owners might attempt to deny their residents the protection of the Bill by taking action before it comes into force. The Bill has now completed most of its stages in another place and in this House and I do not think that it is unduly premature to say that it is Parliament's wish that mobile home residents should enjoy the protection that the Bill will provide. These amendments will reduce as far as possible the danger that site owners will be able to prevent that happening between now and commencement.
Subject to the approval of this House and of another place, we hope that the Bill will complete its remaining stages in time for it to achieve Royal Assent and come into force before the end of May. Any resident who is still on a mobile home site—provided that his right to be there has not already been brought to an end by then—will be entitled to the protection of the Bill from;its commencement date. Following the amendments which the House agreed to earlier, residents will have security of tenure and the right to sell from the day that the Bill comes into force. I should perhaps add that the Caravan Sites Act 1968 provides that a notice to "determine a residential contract" on mobile home sites cannot take effect in less than 28 days.
In considering how best to cope with attempts to evade the Bill, we examined the possibility of making its provisions retrospective. I do not think that any hon. Member regards retrospective legislation with enthusiasm and it did not seem to us that retrospection would achieve significantly more than these amendments. We also considered bringing the Bill into force at Royal Assent but it cannot be fully effective unless an order has been made under schedule 1, part I, paragraph 8, fixing the maximum level of commission that a site owner can charge on the sale of a mobile home. The week between Royal Assent and commencement will enable us to make and lay that order. It will also enable us to make the regulations with which a site owner's written statement must comply under


what is now clause 1. This inevitably means that the statutory instruments must come into effect almost immediately, without the normal 21-day period to which the House is accustomed.
There is one other point that I should make about these amendments. They will give those affected by the Bill little time to prepare for commencement. That is why new clause 1 gives site owners six months in which to provide written statements to those on site at commencement, rather than three as we had originally intended. Security of tenure and the other implied terms will, of course, apply from the date of commencement.
I do not claim that these amendments are altogether desirable. It would have been better to bring the Bill into force after a more reasonable interval. However, I believe that they are necessary if the Bill is to be as effective as possible in protecting those whom it is designed to protect. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I strongly support these amendments. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) will have received the same letter as me as he is the president and I a vice president of a park in his constituency. Unfortunately, there are some site owners who can be pretty nasty. In one case, a lady who formed a residents' association has apparently been given notice to quit and been taken to court. There is a need for speed. I should not like to say that that type of treatment is common but it occurs and the Minister is absolutely right to take this action.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 5, line 6, leave out from 'passed' to end of line 8.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Schedule 1

AGREEMENTS UNDER ACT

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 6, leave out lines 6 to 16.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Graham: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 6, line 19, leave out from 'subsist' to end of line 20 and insert
`for—

(a) the term of the agreement; or
(b) until the agreement is determined under paragraphs 4, 5, 5A or 6 below,

whichever is the longer.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 29, 31 and the amendments thereto, amendment No. 32, in page 6, line 38, leave out from 'agreement' to end of line 41 and insert
`forthwith if, on the application of the owner, the court is satisfied that—

(a) the occupier has breached a term of the agreement;
(b) after service of a notice to remedy the breach, the occupier has not compiled with the notice within a reasonable time; and
(c) it would be reasonable to allow the owner to terminate the agreement.'.

and Government amendments Nos. 33, 35, 41 and 42.

Mr. Graham: The Opposition do not want to be churlish but we still have some reservations. There may be defects in amendment No. 28 but it should be discussed. Our main reservation is that unacceptable terms

could still be imposed by an unreasonable site operator on such important matters as services, repairing obligations, site rules and access arrangements. As we understand it, the only remaining sanction is the occupier's right to apply to a court. That entails many problems. Amendments Nos. 28 and 32 are designed to take account of that. In 1977 a Department report stated:
There is resentment at some of the more oppressive conditions, and particularly at the way in which rules which were not in themselves unreasonable had been enforced.
My worry is that breach of unacceptable terms would still, under the new approach, lead to mandatory termination of the agreement. The same would be true for the unreasonable enforcement of apparently acceptable terms. The problem would remain that occupiers who have failed to challenge unacceptable terms will be exposed to the threat of termination.
It is easy to envisage cases where, unless there is further amendment, an occupier could face the termination of an agreement in unacceptable circumstances. Some examples are an occupier who broke a term prohibiting visits by grandchildren at weekends, an elderly occupier in breach of an obligation to paint the outside of his home every three years, or an occupier in financial difficulties who needs a short time to pay arrears of pitch fees. Tenants of publicly and privately rented houses and flats would not usually be evicted in such circumstances. Eviction for breach of agreement can be ordered only if a court believes it to be reasonable. That is the genesis of paragraph (c) of amendment No. 32, which provides that the site owner's will could prevail in the court only if the court held that it would be reasonable to allow the owner to terminate the agreement. What the owner wishes may appear to be reasonable and sensible, but the court must say that the owner's action, in all the circumstances, not merely within the strict letter of the law, is unreasonable. The discretion shall be exercised by the magistrate or judge.
The amendments are modest improvements to ensure that the satisfaction felt by many because of the Government's action will be more complete. It is not enough to say that occupiers should negotiate agreements to ensure that they are not unreasonable. That ignores the dangers of an apparently reasonable clause being unreasonably enforced, and it ignores the weaker bargaining position of the occupier and his lower willingness or ability to negotiate or to go to court. The Government introduced their amendments to rectify that imbalance, and we hope that the Government will accept the sense of our amendments.
The Law Society has expressed support for the suggestion that the courts should have discretion. This is not a major matter, but it means that if a site owner's rights are to be upheld a judge or a magistrate should have the power to say whether they are reasonable. The site owner can do nothing until the court decides that it is reasonable.

Mr. Lyell: I support the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), and I shall speak to amendments (a) to (e) to Government amendment No. 31, which deal with the termination of an agreement by the court. I welcome the fact that the proposals already accepted by the Government mean that an agreement can be terminated by the site operator only after he has been to court and the court has permitted it, having weighed up the circumstances. However, as the hon. Member for Edmonton explained,


if the amendments are not accepted, the court might have to sanction an unfair termination. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept them.
5.15 pm
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the residual judicial discretion in the court was included in my amendments in Committee, on which my hon. Friend promised consultations. Let us suppose that a perfectly reasonable term of a mobile home agreement is that the home owner shall paint his home every three or five years. Perhaps an elderly mobile home owner has failed to paint his home, which is beginning to look a little scruffy, and the site owner serves him notice to do so within three to six months. However, the home owner may become ill or have a sudden financial difficulty and may not paint his home within three or six months. An unreasonable site operator may decide to take advantage of that. I hasten to assure members of the National Caravan Council and the National Federation of Site Operators, the vast majority of whom are excellent site operators, that they have nothing to fear from this amendment. However, a small minority of operators are unscrupulous and may take advantage of that unhappy position. The matter would then come before a court. The facts would be established and, however much he might wish to help the home owner, the county court judge would have no discretion to alleviate the problem.
Parliament has seen fit to give such discretion in landlord and tenant cases, leasehold cases and private rented accommodation cases, and the Government rightly saw fit to give that discretion to council house tenants who could have been evicted at the whim of the council, although that did not often happen. My amendment is based on the proposals of the National Consumer Council, as is amendment No. 32. We wish to give the same judicial discretion to the courts for mobile home owners as applies to all other residential occupiers. I hope that my hon. Friend can accept the amendment, because recently persuasive letters about the matter have appeared in the press.
Amendment No. 28 has a slightly different purpose from that outlined by the hon. Member for Edmonton. It deals with those who have longish leaseholds, and I invite my hon. Friend to consider it carefully in that context. It is not a mast to which I have nailed my flag, but it seems to be sensible, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will consider it with his usual good will and good sense.

Mr. Mudd: Government amendment N9. 35 sets out what might seem to be a rather cumbersome procedure. If we take the purpose of the amendment literally, the site operator must go to court to obtain permission to terminate the agreement and must presumably state his case. If he receives the court's permission to terminate the agreement, he must then start the procedures to gain possession on almost the same evidence. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can show us how to simplify that cumbersome procedure.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I listened carefully to the speech made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell), but I am unable to give his amendments enthusiastic support. I hope that the Government will not support them, although I suspect that they will. According to the Government's amendment, a site owner can go to court because an occupier has

manifestly breached the agreement. In my constituency that could mean that a tenant has, shall we say, entertained a group of American service men in a park home. That is rare, but it happens. That may cause grave offence to many elderly residents. Those residents do not always write to me about such incidents, but they do so quite often. There are 27,000 American service men in my constituency and it is not unknown for a cen ain amount of entertainment to go on in park homes.
Under pressure from the majority of residents, the site owner may go to court and seek an order. A county court —at least in Suffolk—would agree to such an order. However, if my hon. and learned Friend's amendments were carried, the person in question—for example, an unattached female — could become homeless. In my constituency, we have great trouble with the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. For one reason or another, people voluntarily, in my judgment, make themselves homeless. However, it is difficult to prove that.
Some district councils in my area are at their wits' end to know what to do with the ladies who are attracted to American air bases in East Anglia, and who come from every part of the country and from other countries as well. They become attached to airmen, who, after a short while, are transferred back to Arizona or Germany. They leave behind them not only the ladies whom they have come to know, but sometimes young relatives. The district council finds that, under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, it must provide accommodation. Those of my constituents who have been waiting for some time on the housing list take a very poor view of queue-jumping by such ladies.
Let us suppose that the site owner has gone to court and obtained an order for the termination of the agreement, and that the lady involved becomes homeless. Her publicly-provided, legal-aid solicitor might point out that she and her child would have nowhere to go. The court would certainly have to take account of the amendment tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, which states that the court would have to be satisfied that it would be reasonable to allow the owner to terminate the agreement.
In our debates on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, we ploughed through an enormous number of clauses that turned on the question of what was reasonable or reasonably praticable. Many courts would think that, given the occupier's unreasonable behaviour, it would be best, on the whole, for her to go, irrespective of the fact that she had nowhere to go. However, if a young child was involved, the court would probably think it unreasonable for her to be pushed out. The court would have some discretion. I am not against that because at the end of the day the court must determine what in the circumstances is or is not reasonable. I understand that. But when an agreement that the owner and occupier entered into freely has been clearly breached, I have serious doubts whether we should add the braces as well as the belt and so enable that person to stay on, to the discomfort of the majority of those living on the park estate and of the entire neighbourhood. We may also be depriving the site owner of the means of earning his living. I am not at all sure that we should impose that further condition upon him.

Mr. Lyell: My hon. Friend has rightly said that he is not against the court having some discretion. Is he aware that, without these amendments, the court would not have any discretion? The amendments have been tabled to give


the court the discretion that my hon. Friend rightly wants it to have, but it is a discretion that can be exercised only on judicial, not on purely sympathetic, grounds. In view of what I have said, does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment is desirable?

Mr. Griffiths: That may be. My hon. and learned Friend has more working experience of the courts than I have, although from time to time I have a little to do with the law in another capacity. I should be surprised if my hon. and learned Friend is entirely right in saying that, without the amendment, a court would have no discretion. It would be rare for a judge, confronted by such a case, not to have regard to the circumstances. It would be rare for a judge not to apply a reasonable degree of discretion in the circumstances. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Graham: I hope that the Minister will meet that point head on. If it is in the court's power to judge whether an action is reasonable, I would agree that the amendment is unnecessary. However, we have been advised that our amendment is necessary. That is why it appears on the Amendment Paper.

Mr. Griffiths: It is, of course, for the Minister to say what he has been advised. After some years' experience in his office and in others, I suspect that the advice he has received will be that which his Department, in all the circumstances, wanted to give him, and that is not based on any detailed knowledge of the practice of our county courts. I should be surprised if county courts did not have the discretion to judge how to handle such cases.

Sir George Young: In discussing the Government amendments that have been selected, I shall be inviting the House to support amendments (a) to (e) tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) and to resist amendments Nos. 28 and 32. I shall come to amendment No. 32 in a moment, but I think that my hon. and learned Friend's amendments secure the objective in a better way.
Amendment No. 28 was moved by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) although he did not speak to it. Agreements now in force between residents and site owners may not allow the site owner to terminate them on the grounds of the age or condition of the home. In those cases, the Bill could make a difference if the site owner chose to use the powers within it. It is right that it should. We considered in Committee whether the provision in the Bill which allows the site owner to terminate an agreement on the grounds of age and condition was fair to site owners and residents. I argued then that this ground for termination was needed to protect the site owner against mobile homes that had reached the end of their lives and to protect other residents on the site for the same reason. It is certainly not in the interests of other residents that decaying mobile homes should remain on site indefinitely. Most hon. Members accept that the lives of mobile homes are finite. The Bill recognises that fact, but amendment No. 28 would not.
The second group of amendments deals with the second point raised in the consultation letter that we issued following the Bill's Committee stage. It covers a site

owner's ability to terminate an agreement on the grounds that the resident had breached its terms. The Government amendments will provide that a site owner can terminate an agreement on these grounds only after an application to the court. The court must be satisfied that the resident has breached his agreement and that he has been served with a notice to remedy the breach, with which he has failed to comply within a reasonable time. Taken together with the other procedures for termination of agreements in the Bill, these amendments will ensure that an agreement to which the Bill applies can be brought to an end only with the consent of the court. It will be the site owner rather than the court who terminates the agreement, but he will need the court's approval to do so.
With regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said about discretion, the Government amendments would merely provide that the court had to be satisfied that the resident had breached his agreement and been served with a notice to remedy the breach with which he had failed to comply within a reasonable time.
In response to our consultation letter I am glad to be able to tell the House that no one is opposed to the Government's proposed change in the Bill's provisions. Some pro-resident groups wanted us to go further to allow the court discretion to decide whether to terminate an agreement. That is the purpose of the amendments in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead and of amendment No. 32 in the name of the hon. Member for Edmonton, which I heard myself being urged to support on the "Today" programme at 6.45 this morning. I shall discuss the amendments in a moment.
I pay tribute to the National Federation of Site Operators and the National Caravan Council for their willingness to accept the change that the Government have proposed. I hope to put their minds at rest on the question that they raised. They were worried that a site owner who wished to terminate an agreement to which the Bill applies and to evict a resident under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 might have to go to court twice to do so. My advice is that this is unlikely to be necessary, and that there is no obvious reason why a site owner should not be able to apply for an eviction order at the same time as he applies for the termination of an agreement. I cannot give a categoric assurance. It is a matter for the court rather than for Ministers. We cannot amend the Bill to deal with this subject because it relates to eviction, which is quite separate from the matters with which the Bill deals at present. I hope that what I have said will allay the fears of site owners.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead has proposed that we should go further than the amendments proposed by the Government and allow the court to terminate an agreement for breach of its terms only if it considers it reasonable to do so. The Opposition have tabled amendment No. 32 for the same purpose. We have looked carefully at the arguments in favour of giving the court discretion here and at the possible disadvantages. We have come to the conclusion that we should recommend to the House that my hon. and learned Friend's amendments (a) to (e) should be accepted. I am advised that amendment No. 32 would not work, and I hope that that will not be pressed.
We accept that, without my hon. and learned Friend's amendments, there is a danger that the courts would have no discretion and would have no option but to terminate


an agreement even though the term that had been breached or the breach itself was trivial. These amendments will allow the courts to exercise their discretion in such cases. There is a precedent, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, in the provisions of the Housing Act 1980 relating to the termination of secure tenancies for breach of agreement, and in the Rent Acts concerning the failure to pay the rent and other breaches of a tenancy agreement. At the same time, the amendments will not bring the Rent Acts into the Bill.
It is essential that I should reassure site owners on this point. In the first place, the court will have no power to suspend an order terminating an agreement. If the court accepts that it should be terminated, the site owner will be entitled to do so forthwith. Secondly, the courts will not be required to consider the relative hardship of site owner and resident as they are in certain cases under the Rent Acts. The Bill will say only that the courts must consider

'forthwith if, on the application of the owner, the court is satisfied that the occupier

(a) has breached a term of the agreement; and
(b) after service of a notice to remedy the breach, has not complied with the notice'.—IMr. Garel-Jones.]

Amendments made to the proposed amendment No. 31:

(a), in line 2, leave out '40', and insert '41'.
(b), in line 3, after 'court', insert `(a)'
(c), in line 4, leave out `(a)'.
(d), in line 5, leave out `(b)'.
(e), in line 6, at end insert

'within a reasonable time; and
(b) considers it reasonable for the agreement to be terminated'.—[Mr. Lyell.]

Amendment No. 31, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 7, line 5 after 'that', insert `(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Amendment No. 38, in page 7, line 7 leave out `(a) and insert '(i)'.
Amendment No. 39, in page 7, line 9 leave out `(b)' and insert '(ii)'.
Amendment No. 40, in page 7, line 10 at end insert—
`(b) By reason of changes in the character of the neighbourhood or that the land has been zoned for another use the owner has obtained planning consent for the redevelopment of the site'.

Mr. Griffiths: I am concerned to import into the Bill a little more flexibility for the site owner, particularly where, due to circumstances beyond his or anyone else's control, the nature of the locality in which the park homes are situated drastically changes or where, as a result of decisions of the local authority about land use in the area, he is able to obtain planning consent for a development of his site for a different beneficial user. I have had some responsibility for planning for a number of years, and I am conscious of the difficulty in getting change of use certificates in many areas. I am also conscious of the fact that things happen that can rapidly and dramatically transform the character of an environment.
I shall give one example, but there are a million others. In my constituency, not far from an extremely large American air base, the local authority decided to establish a small industrial park to provide alternative employment for the people of the Mildenhall area who do not work at the American base. The local authority was anxious to do that because the GLC had terminated its overspill

it reasonable to terminate an agreement before doing so. I do not believe that the amendments will make it significantly more difficult for site owners to terminate agreements where they have a good case—for example, where the residents have failed to pay the pitch fees.

I do not believe that the Government's amendments or those of my hon. and learned Friend will tip the balance too far against site owners. I concur with what has been said by other hon. Members that, together, the amendments of which I have spoken in favour add a further worthwhile protection to residents. I commend them to the House.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 29 in page 6, line 20, after '5' insert `5A' .—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Amendment proposed: No. 31, in page 6, line 38, leave out from 'agreement' to end of line 40, and insert

agreement and the authority therefore thought it right to encourage starter units for small factories. This duly happened. As a consequence, one of the best-kept park home sites suddenly found that, instead of it being in a relatively agreeable rural environment, albeit with an airfield close by, it was turned into the neighbour of an industrial estate, making the circumstances of the park home site and the circumstances of those who lived on it very different indeed. Many of them had gone there believing that they were going to the countryside. They ended up finding themselves the neighbours of a factory estate. Roads were laid, there was noise and pollution and surroundings became drab.

The site owner went to the local authority and it was agreed that at the end of five years, when most of the agreements had run out, he would be granted a change of use for the land to turn his park site into an industrial site. That was very sensible. That can happen before the Bill becomes law, but it will be difficult after the Bill becomes law. I am not sure that that is just or sensible.

I read with great care the debate in Committee on this matter, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd). The Minister gave him a fairly dusty answer, and he may give the same response this afternoon.

When there is a dramatic change in a neighbourhood, or when a local authority zones the neighbourhood for a different use, it should be possible for the owner of a site to go to court and attain possession of his own land on that ground. I am well aware of the housing Acts and the protection available. I understand that hardship could be caused if, as a result of planning consent, people were turfed out. That would be outwith the spirit of the Bill. However, it is not right that, where circumstances have changed dramatically, people are locked in. Because one or more people, perhaps quite unreasonably, insist upon remaining in occupation of their homes, the owner of the site could never do anything to change the use of that site in his own interest and, in my judgment, in the interest of the community and the public.

The reality is that a landowner—and he is not always a rich man—could lose his long-term freehold interest


in his own land in perpetuity. That is bound to have an adverse effect on the value of the land. If it damages the value, he is much less likely to make the new investment to improve the site. I find it difficult to believe that a Conservative Government would want that. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the freeholders of commercial prpoerties have certain protections against this problem. I am asking only that park owners should be given similar rights.

Sir George Young: i fully understand the reaons behind my hon. Friend's amendments. He is right to say that the Bill would restrict the freedom for manoeuvre of those who own the sites, but that it is right that that should be the case.
The amendments would have a very significant effect on the working of the Bill. They would add a new ground on which a site owner could apply to the court for an agreement to be terminated. The bill currently allows a site owner to go to court for the termination of an agreement on a number of grounds—first, that the resident is not living in his mobile home; secondly, tha the mobile home is, having regard to its age and condition, detrimental to the amenity of the site or that it will become so within the next five years—a judgement that our constituents will have to make on us shortly—and, thirdly, following the government amendment that I introduced earlier, tha the resident has breached a termof his agreement. The amendments would add a fourth ground for termination by the court — that the site owner hs obtained planning permision to redevelop the site as s result either of changes in the character of the neighbourhood or of the local authority's decision to zone the land for another use.
The amendments are similar to others put down in Committee by my hon. friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd). I was concerned about the effect that those amendments would hve had s drafted, and I am afraid that I mut raise a boring pint about the drafting of the new amendments. They appear to require the court to satisfy itself as to why a site owner has received planning consent for the redevelopment of his land before terminating an agreement. I must tell my hon. Friend that it does not seem to be any business of a court whichis examining an application for the termination of an agreement under the Mobile Homes Bill to consider what reasons a local authority had for granting a planning permission in respect of the site. The reasons might not be available in the form required by the court.
I rest my case for my reluctance to accept the amendments on a more fundamental reason. They would seriously weaken the security of tenure the Bill will provide for residents. I do not want to go into detail about the possible reasons why a site owner might gain a new planning permission for the use of a mobile home site. That matter is between a stie owner and his local planning authority. If my hon. Friend is concerned that development in an area neighbouring a mobile home site makes it necessary for the site owner to reorganise his site, the Bill will not prevent his doing so, so long as he has made provision for that in his agreements. It provides for him to pay the costs of a reorganisation, but it will not prevent one happening.
What the Bill will not allow is a site owner taking possession of his site and evicting his residents because he has found a more profitable use for his land. If he has allowed people to bring their mobile homes on to his site, he can terminate the agreements he has with them only on one of the limited grounds for which the Bill currently provides. There will be constraints on the use of his land. That is the inevitable result of the security of tenure that the Bill provides.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In perpetuity.

Sir George Young: A mobile home does not have an indefinite life. A site owner could run down the site and not allow any new homes on it. However, I accept that that would take a period of years.
There is no way in which the Bill can guarantee genuine security of tenure for residents and give site owners complete control over the land. The Bill will allow a site owner to make a decent income from his site and to get rid of residents who break their agreements or whose homes deteriorate. But if it is to strike a balance between site owners and residents, residents must have real security of tenure. The amendments would severely reduce that security of tenure and alter the balance between site owner and residents.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: When a local authority considers its structure plan and what it wishes its area to become, it can go down one of two routes. If it believes that land should be used for good public purpose, such as a school, it can apply for a compulsory purchase order. It can act against a caravan park for that purpose. A public hearing would take place and the matter would be referred to the Secretary of State. A local authority can usually obtain a CPO for a public purpose.
However, a local authority might take the view that rather than applying for a CPO and using public funds to buy the site it preferred to encourage a private owner to develop it for the same purpose, perhaps an industrial starter site. Is it not rather peculiar that a CPO could be placed upon a mobile park site for the purpose of constructing industrial units, but a Conservative Government are preventing, certainly for a generation, a private owner from doing exactly the same thing, at no cost to public funds and to the considerable benefit of the economy in the area? Why is there the difference in standard?

Sir George Young: There is a crucial distinction between the two cases that my hon. Friend cites. In the one that his amendment deals with, the incentive lies with the site owner to apply for planning permission. With CFOs, there are many inbuilt protections which would give some protection to the people on the site. My hon. Friend said that the matter has to go to the local authority and it has to make the decision about a CPO. Also there has to be a public inquiry, and finally the matter has to come to the Secretary of State. There is a series of inbuilt checks and balances which do not exist in my hon. Friend's amendment. So I cannot accept that there is a direct parallel between the two situations that my hon. Friend described.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: With respect to my hon. Friend, local authorities do not just hand out planning consents like confetti. They have to be convinced. He must know that, throughout the country, far too many applications for


redevelopment are turned down. An owner seeking to get a change of use for his caravan site, for instance for light industrial use or something of that nature, has to go through many hoops and over many obstacles. So there is a great deal of protection in the fact that the local authority's own judgment and discretion are involved.

Sir George Young: What my hon. Friend says is quite right, but that is not quite the same as the CPO procedure, with its public hearing and the decision coming finally to the Secretary of State. There is nothing to stop the site owner applying for planning permission for a change of use for his site to obtain light industrial use. If the local authority agrees, that change can be made. However, the home owners cannot then be evicted. We are not prepared to deny the security to which the owners of the caravans are entitled. There will have to be some arrangement to persuade site owners to buy back the homes, or to make alternative provision, or to rearrange them on the site. That is possible under the Bill as drafted. My hon. Friend's amendments would shift the balance against the owners of the caravans, and for that reason I cannot commend them to the House.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 7, line 11, leave out '(2)' , and insert '(1)'.

No. 42, in page 7, line 16, after '5', insert '5A' .— [Sir George Young.]

Mr. Timothy Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 7, line 21, before 'the occupier' insert
`Subject to subparagraph (4) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take amendment No. 47, in page 7, line 32, at end insert—
'(3A) Where the owner is a local authority and the protected site has been provided by that local authority solely to meet housing need on or before the date that this Act came into force, the owner may withhold his approval of a person who is not on the waiting list of the local authority for a pitch on that protected site. '.

Mr. Smith: Amendments Nos. 44 and 47 are supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), whom I am delighted to see here today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), and my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), Wokingham (Sir. W. van Straubenzee), Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), and Canterbury (Mr. Crouch).
The object of the amendments is to add a new subparagraph to paragraph 8 of schedule 1, which deals with the sale of mobile homes. The paragraph provides:
The occupier shall be entitled to sell the mobile home, and to assign the agreement, to a person approved of by the owner, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
That is fine for mobile home sites that are owned privately and in the private sector. I make it clear that all those who support the amendments have no quarrel with the general objects of the Bill.
However, as I explained on Second Reading, a difficulty arises with mobile home sites that are owned by local authorities. Although the main abuses that have occurred have occurred in the private sector, the Bill extends to local authorities, principally because there have been abuses in cases where a mobile home site has been

transferred or sold from the private to the public sector and as a result the occupiers have lost their statutory rights under the 1975 Act. However, that is not the concern of the proposers of the amendment. The amendment is concerned with sites which are and always have been owned by local authorities and which are provided to meet local housing need.
It is not a coincidence that all those who support the amendment represent constituencies in the home counties. There is good reason for that, and it is that in the home counties the cost of housing in both the private and public sectors is very high indeed. That is why a number of district councils have sought to meet local housing need and to fulfil their statutory obligations in that respect by providing mobile home sites. I emphasise that the object of providing such pitches is local housing need.
I take my district council, South Bucks, as an example. It has two sites which provide altogether for over 100 tenants. It keeps a separate waiting list for mobile home sites, and that list is completely separate from the waiting list for council houses and fiats. To ensure that the people who are tenants are people who are in housing need, it limits the sale of the mobile homes to people who are on the waiting list. If a tenant who is the tenant of a pitch and owns his own home wants to sell it, the council says—in my view, quite reasonably—that he must sell it to someone who is on its special waiting list for mobile home sites. That is very different from what happens in the private sector, where the principal object of running a site is, presumably, to make a profit. It is therefore reasonable to provide, as the Bill does, that the tenant of a pitch can sell his caravan to the highest bidder, regardless of where he comes from or of whether he is in housing need.
Amendment No. 47 recognises the distinction that I have just described. It is supported by the Association of District Councils. It provides:
Where the owner is a local authority and the protected site has been provided by that local authority solely to meet housing need on or before the date that this Act came into force, the owner may withhold his approval of a person who is not on the waiting list of the local authority for a pitch on that protected site.
We have specifically included reference to the date when this legislation comes into force so that there is a cut-off point and so that this amendment will be applied only to local authorities which at present provide pitches on site to meet local housing need.
I recognise that since Second Reading the Government have given close and serious consideration to the problems that were raised in that debate. However, in my opinion, the Government have reached the wrong conclusion. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wrote to Sir Duncan Lock, the chairman of the housing committee of the South Bucks district council, on 28 April setting out the reasons why he felt that it was not possible to accept the amendment, or something on the lines of the amendment. He said:
I am sorry that you feel that the Bill will limit the ability of local authorities to meet local housing need.
There is no doubt that if the Bill is enacted in its present form it will limit the ability of local authorities to meet local housing need in this respect. The existing tenants, who are local authority tenants, will have the right to sell to all corners. The highest bidder for a caravan may be on the housing waiting list, but the chances are that he will not be on that list. Certainly there is no guarantee that he will be.
The Under-Secretary went on to say in his letter to Sir Duncan Lock:
You make the point that a mobile home is worth very much more on a site than it is off it. That is the very reason why it is important that occupiers should have the right to sell on site.
I accept that. Under the amendment they would have exactly the same right. If they want to sell off site, no one will quarrel with that, because the question does not then arise. It is only when they want to sell on site that the question of who they sell to arises, because the local authority is providing the pitch, and not the caravan, to meet a local housing need.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary also said that
the site owner will be allowed a say in who the purchaser of a mobile home is. The Bill provides for the purchaser of a mobile home to be approved by the site owner, that approval not to be unreasonably withheld.
I do not know exactly what
that approval not to be unreasonably withheld
means. I suspect that it would not extend to a case where the local authority decided that it would withhold its approval unless the prospective purchaser was on the waiting list or in housing need. That proviso in paragraph 8(1) of the schedule will be of great help to district councils which are affected by this provision.
My hon. Friend then said:
It seems to me likely that … people on the Council's waiting list ought to be able to compete from outside the Council's area";
and he made a distinction between people who were long term tenants and who had perhaps been on the site for a long time and short-term tenants who perhaps were hoping to move elsewhere.
6 pm
It may be that they would be able to compete; it is possible if the price of the caravan is £1,000 or less. On the other hand, it might not be so reasonably priced and then somebody from outside would be the highest bidder. There would be no guarantee in that situation that the people on the housing list would win.
My hon. Friend then said that
the Bill is unlikely to have the severe consequences you fear".
We shall have to wait and see what the consequences are.
It has been made quite clear to me that if the Bill is not amended my district council will have to think carefully about whether it should be in the business of owning a mobile home site because it is not in the business of trying to provide mobile housing just for anybody who wants it. Its aim is to provide such homes for people in need and that will not be possible if the Bill remains in its present form. The council would then be likely to withdraw from that business and sell its two sites to private owners. If that were to happen, that method of providing for those in housing need would go and and the authority would have to fall back on the more conventional methods of providing homes. As Sir Duncan Lock made clear in a letter to my hon. Friend, the cost of providing conventional housing in South Bucks is high compared with pitches on a caravan site, and one must bear in mind the sums of public money involved.
I understand that there are ramifications attached to amending the Bill in the way I seek. Nevertheless, I am sorry that after the careful consideration which has been given by the Department to the proposed change, it has not been possible, although a number of options to find a way of coping with the problem were considered.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I am pleased to support the amendment and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), who is my neighbouring hon. Member. Many of the sites to which he referred are situated in his constituency. This matter has been raised with my hon. Friend and with me by Sir Duncan Lock, who has a distinguished record in local government. The Minister will be the first to agree that my hon. friend is not the sort of person who would raise such a matter unless it was extremely serious for his local authority.
The Government might have been prepared to concede the case which South Bucks district council put forward, remembering that it is not just that area which is concerned. I understand from the answer to a parliamentary question which I tabled recently that the report of the mobile homes review published in 1977 indicated that 5 per cent. or 450 out of about 9,000 sites in England and Wales were owned by local authorities. There has not been a survey since 1977 and the number today may be higher. These sites are used by local authorities as part of the housing stock to meet housing need. I should have thought that the amendment would, therefore, be acceptable, especially as no other local authorities would be able to benefit in future in view of the cut-off point mentioned in it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend know whether in the case to which he is referring the local authority owns any of the mobile homes, or is it exclusively the owner of the site? If the latter, who owns the homes?

Mr. Shersby: The local authority is the owner of the site and the homes can be owned by an operator or tenant, but my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield can deal with that in more detail, being familiar with the problem because the sites are in his constituency.

Mr. Stanbrook: In that case, how does my hon. Friend distinguish his case from that of a council which wishes to impose limitations on the right to buy council houses by tenants who subsequently want to sell them on the open market? Is there any important point of principle in the case to which my hon. Friend refers and is not the logic of his argument and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) that the principles involved in the right to buy council houses are wrong? If so, would they come clean and say why they are distinguishing between the two?

Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is an important point of principle at stake here. We are talking about local authorities wishing to meet their housing need by other than conventional houses and flats, in this case by way of mobile homes. I am saying that if the Bill remains unamended, those local authorities will have to provide additional local authority accommodation, and that may involve them in considerable additional expense. That is a different position from that of a local authority which is selling council houses from within its normal housing stock; it will not suddenly have to meet an additional housing need because it is selling those houses to tenants.
There is therefore a slight difference. That difference is recognised in the amendment in that it is not seeking to apply the exclusion for ever and a day. It proposes that


there should be a cut-off point, after which no further mobile homes of this type should be affected. It is an attempt to reach a compromise, taking account of the importance of the principle of the right of council tenants to buy their own homes. There is a slight difference in the case of mobile homes.
It has been useful for my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield to bring the matter to the attention of the House. It does not concern my constituency because my local authority does not meet its housing need in this way; it does not, so far as I am aware, do anything of this sort. But relatives of my constituents live in mobile homes in my hon. Friend's constituency and are therefore affected by these provisions. That is why I take a friendly, neighbourly and passing interest in the amendment.
The chairman of the South Bucks district council has made a strong case to my hon. Friend, who has considered the matter with his usual courtesy and consideration. I hope that, when replying, the Minister will be able to give the Department's latest thinking on the matter and may feel able to offer advice to councils in the position of South Bucks.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I too wish to offer a friendly, neighbourly and passing comment. I am somewhat bewildered by my hon. Friend's speech, excellent though it was. If the tenants who have the good fortune to occupy municipally owned sites which Sir Duncan Lock and his authority have provided and are living in mobile homes, they will have had to find perhaps £5,000 as a minimum in cash because mobile homes do not normally attract mortgages.

Mr. Timothy Smith: I agree that it is difficult to obtain a mortgage for a mobile home, but it is possible to get loan finance.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Yes, but they will have had to find the cash or have had the resources to finance a substantial loan. If they have a relatively modern mobile home—I am sure that in South Bucks they have nothing but the best—the owners one way or another will have had to find very substantial sums. I understand that nowadays these homes cost from £15,000 to £20,000. The case being made by my hon. Friends is that if the council, as a result of the Bill, were to lose the use of its sites, it would then have to provide alternative accommodation out of its municipal housing stock because the provision of mobile homes is part of meeting its housing need. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has a stronger argument than that. In my area, those who have an asset worth a minimum of £5,000 and probably more like £20,000 can hardly, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as being at the top of the list of those in housing need. That is why I asked who owned the vans on the site.
I have been made aware of the correspondence from Sir Duncan Lock and I share my hon. Friends' admiration for him, but I do not think that the case is well made out. In the same innocent or mischievous way as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I ask a question. Where a local authority owns the site, a result of the Bill is that the tenant virtually has ownership in perpetuity or for at least a generation or so, because he cannot be moved out if he behaves himself. Why should not the tenant be able to exercise the right to buy which has been brought in so commendably by the Minister for

Housing and Construction. whom I am delighted to see here? He has been the author of a social revolution of enormous benefit to our people.
Why should not a person who has a mobile home worth from £5,000 to £20,000 on a municipal site have the same right to buy that site as has been provided for other tenants? I believe that I know the answer. There are many problems which have led my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to leave that out of this legislation so far. I could not, against that background, accept easily the plea that the Bill would create a problem of housing need in South Bucks if it were to go through unamended.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will not accept the amendment. Although I suspect that he may come close to doing so, I do not believe that he will go all the way. I find it difficult to accept the implication of a double standard. This afternoon I have been putting forward a number of pleas on behalf of the site owner without much result so far. The amendment implies that what is sauce for the private site owner—providing good accommodation for tenants—shall not be sauce for the municipal gander. What is the difference in principle between the two? I do not believe that that can be right as a matter of principle.
I referred earlier to the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. When people make themselves undesirable neighbours or unacceptable tenants, the owner goes to court and asks that those people should leave. He is then confronted suddenly by the fact that the local authority is unable to provide accommodation unless that Act is brought to bear.
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield what the position would be if the local authority insisted on withholding its approval of a person who wanted to go on to a municipally owned site on the ground that that person was not already on the housing list. What happens if the local authority is confronted, under the provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, with a priority person whom it has to house even though that person is not on the housing list?

Mr. Timothy Smith: There is a fundamental distinction between the two cases. The private operator of a mobile home site is in business basically to make a profit. At the same time, he is providing a service for his customers. In the two cases to which I referred, the local authority is in the business of meeting a local housing need.
My hon. Friend asked how people could be in housing need if they could pay from £5,000 to £20,000 for their caravans. There is a wide range of prices. The Under-Secretary wrote to me the other day saying:
My understanding is that the 'short-stay' occupiers occupy caravans at the inexpensive end of the market, normally costing less than £1,000.
These caravans are not all as grand as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) believes. Some of them are pretty clapped out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) said that these amendments were inconsistent with the right-to-buy provisions. If I thought that that were so, I should not be putting them forward. I have been one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the Housing Act 1980 and put forward a private Member's Bill about five years ago advocating the same thing. If the Government had included a proposal in the Bill whereby a tenant could have bought the freehold plot on which his caravan was


situated, I should have had to think carefully about putting forward the amendments. I do not know why the Government did not think of that. There could be a great deal in favour of that proposal.
I should like to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sir George Young: I am deeply flattered that, before the Government have put their case against the amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has decided that it is so overpowering that he does not want to hear it. As one would expect, he put forward an eloquent case on behalf of South Buckinghamshire district council and he deserves a reply. I join him in paying tribute to the energy of Sir Duncan Lock in securing support for the amendments.
There has been a great deal of correspondence that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have received from five local authorities and from seven county branches of the ADC. It is clear that a number of local authorities are worried that the provisions of this Bill will prevent them from using mobile home sites which they own in the way they have done in the last few years. That is the background to these amendments.
We have considered the amendments carefully. I have talked to Sir Duncan and met officials from South Buckinghamshire. I cannot commend the amendments to the House, but I bring some small cheer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who had to put up with a little dialogue earlier when we found ourselves on opposite sides of the debate. I believe that the effect of my hon. Friend's amendments would be undesirable. I do not believe that the Bill as it stands will have the adverse effect on local authority sites that some local authorities fear.
The Bill currently allows a resident who wishes to sell his mobile home to seek the site owner's approval of the prospective purchaser. That approval is not to be unreasonably withheld. It would be for the courts to decide whether a local authority consistently tried to block someone from moving on to the site on the ground that he was not on the waiting list. The Bill provides that the site owner shall receive commission on the sale price up to a maximum which we propose to fix at 10 per cent.
The Bill will apply to local authority and private sites in the same way. The Bill's application to local authority sites is one aspect that has been welcomed on all sides. These amendments would have a very significant impact on the rights of residents of local authority sites.
The right to sell a mobile home on site is one of the most crucial that the Bill provides. Indeed, to judge by the correspondence that my Department receives on the subject, it seems to be regarded as more important by many residents than security of tenure. Mobile homes cost money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, some of them cost many thousands of pounds. Whatever their cost, their owners want to be able to recover the value of their investment when they leave. This is what the right to sell on site will provide, and we would need a powerful case made out to restrict that right.
The amendment would enable a local authority to refuse approval to a prospective purchaser of a mobile home who was not on its waiting list for the site concerned.

It would be able to do so in the case of sites which had been in existence before the Bill came into force, where those sites had been provided
solely to meet housing need".
Our estimates suggest that there are 7,000 mobile homes on local authority sites in England and Wales, and there cannot be much doubt that the amendment would limit the right to sell for most of those residents. Whatever the intention behind the amendment, most, if not all, local authorities would claim that their sites were provided "to meet housing need". The amendment does not provide any way in which the courts could test the reasonableness of that claim. A resident who was unhappy with his local authority's decision to refuse approval of a sale would have to go to court to try to overturn that decision. In practice, the amendment would give a local authority an almost completely free hand to refuse approval of a sale to anyone not on its waiting list.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said that local authorities use their sites to provide homes for people who cannot find other housing. It has been said that people will pay several hundred or several thousand pounds for an old mobile home on a local authority site, and live there until they can afford a conventional house or until they are rehoused. My hon. Friend fears that such people will sell their homes to those who are not on the waiting list and perhaps not even in the local authority area.
Whatever the merits of restricting the right to sell of those who have bought relatively cheap mobile homes—I do not accept that there is a good case for doing so—the amendment would also bite on those who have bought expensive homes as a form of permanent housing. South Buckinghamshire district council told us that a third of the residents on its biggest site are people for whom mobile homes are only a staging post, but that two thirds will be on site for two years or much longer. Therefore, if long-term residents on local authority sites wanted to sell their homes, they would be placed at a serious disadvantage if the amendment were carried. I doubt whether they would have confidence that their investment was secure.
Finally, I do not believe that the Bill will have such a dramatic effect on the use of local authority sites as has been claimed. It would give residents the right to sell to anyone they choose, but people on the council's waiting list can bid for a mobile home that is up for sale just as anyone else can. I wonder to what extent people from outside a council's area will be so desperate to move in that they will pay an excessively high price for what may be a very old mobile home. It is more than likely that most homes on local authority sites will continue to be sold to people in the immediate area, and there is no reason why people on the waiting list should not bid for them. The difference will be that the residents will have guaranteed security of tenure and a guaranteed right to sell.
The Bill will place some limits on a local authority's ability to use its mobile home sites as it chooses, but the tenants' charter also limited local authorities' freedom over their conventional housing. Any legislation that gives residents or tenants new rights must limit the control that a site owner or landlord can exercise. The Government believe that residents should be given the rights that the Bill will give them, and that those rights will be by no means as damaging to local authorities as some people seem to believe.
Before I made that case, my hon. Friend expressed his willingness to withdraw the amendment. I hope that nothing that I have said has caused him to change his mind.

Mr. Timothy Smith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 54, in page 8. line 4, at end insert—
`1A. The sums payable by the occupier in pursuance of the agreement and the times at which they are to be paid.'.

No. 55, in page 8, line 5. leave out from 'sums' to end of line 6, and insert 'so payable' .—[Sir George Young.]

Mr. Stanbrook: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 8, line 14, at end insert—
`7. The right of the occupier or his representative to be consulted in the making or amendment of site rules.'.
The point of the amendment is to ensure that there is some form of consultation and democracy in the making of rules that may be of vital importance to the mobile home residents on a site. There does not appear to be any such provision anywhere in the Bill—the appropriate place would be part II of schedule 1—although most people must accept that it is desirable.
Part II of schedule 1 lists the matters that must be provided for in any agreement. First, there is
The right of the occupier to quiet enjoyment".
That is a normal provision in any tenancy agreement. Secondly, there is provision for a rent review. Thirdly,
provision of services available on the protected site, and the use by the occupier of such services.
That provision takes us close to the point of my amendment, because it simply lays down what must be covered in the agreement and does not provide that no such provision should be made without consultation with the residents. Fourthly, there is
The preservation of the amenity of the protected site.
That also suggests what I have in mind. Who can be more interested in the preservation of the amenities than the residents of the site themselves? It is a great pity that there is no provision in the Bill for participation and consultation. Fifthly, there is reference to
The maintenance and repair of the … site by the owner, and the … repair of the mobile home by the occupier.
Again, those are important provisions but there are no clear instructions about what should be done. The sixth provision is for
Access by the owner to the land on which the occupier is entitled to station the mobile home.
The landlord's right of access is another normal provision of tenancy law.
That is the end of the list. Those are all important matters, but it would be quite possible for the spirit of the site rules which govern the day-to-day administration of the site to be contrary to the intentions of the Bill. That cannot be the Government's intention.
The Minister may well reply that we must look at the provisions of the Bill as a whole and consider all the safeguards. However, I am thinking of day-to-day matters at ground level—the small problems that cause disputes and loom large in the everyday life of those who occupy the sites. I am not thinking of problems whose solution deservedly requires the assistance of a court. If there is no provision in the Bill for consultation with residents, how can we be sure that site rules will be made in a reasonable

manner and will not contradict the provisions of the Bill? I respectfully submit that the Government ought to allow this modest addendum to the Bill.

Mr. Lyell: The care and concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) for the mobile home owners in his constituency came to my knowledge as soon as I became interested in the subject because I rapidly began to receive letters from Westavon park.
Whether or not my hon. Friend's amendment fits neatly into the framework of the B I heartily recommend to the House, to mobile home owners and to the country the principle that owners should be consulted by site operators before site rules are made. It is likely to be a term of many mobile home agreements that mobile home owners on sites shall abide by the site rules, persistent breaches of which might justly lead to termination of the agreement. Therefore, it is only sensible and proper that they should be consulted. The Government support the principle of consultation in the far wider areas of industry, council housing and so on. Therefore, whether or not the amendment slots neatly into the framework of the Bill, I commend the spirit of it to the Government.

Sir George Young: First, anything that a site operator sought to put into an agreement would be invalid if it conflicted with the implied terms. New clause 2(1) states that
this subsection shall have effect notwithstanding any express term of the agreement.
In other words, the implied terms have priority.
I agree with what has been said about the need for consultation and we are entirely in favour of such consultation on site rules. The amendment seeks to ensure that a resident or his representative is consulted about amendments to site rules by adding a reference to the right of residents to be consulted in this way to the list of subjects in part II of schedule 1.
We took a trip round this course in Committee when the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) tabled an amendment on the same subject. I said then that we would see whether our consultation produced any fresh thinking on this.
We have now considered the responses to our consultation letter as well as the points made in Committee. I must tell the House, however, that our view has not changed. We do not believe that the Bill would be significantly improved by the inclusion of a provision requiring the public display of site rules, as suggested in Committee, or specifying that residents may ask to be consulted about amendments to site rules, as my hon. Friend's amendment provides. We reached that conclusion for the following reasons.
First, I am sure that an implicit purpose of the amendment is to ensure that residents are aware of site rules, but it is most unlikely that they will not know those rules and we know of no site where that is the case. Naturally enough, if the site owner wishes the rules to be observed he must ensure that they are widely known.
Secondly, an owner who wishes to force residents to act in accordance with the site rules will have to make that a term of the agreement that he offers to them. If the resident does not like the way in which the matter is dealt with in the agreement, he can challenge that term and indeed any other term that he does not Like and, if necessary, ask the court to vary or delete it.
The amendment merely adds to the existing provisions in the Bill the right to ask the court to add a term about site rules to the agreement. However, it is likely to be the site owner rather than the resident who will want to include such terms.
It might be possible for a site owner to have a separate contract with the resident about site rules, but it is up to the resident to decide whether to accept such a contract. If there is a separate contract and it is broken, however, the site owner will not be able to terminate the more important statutory agreement which ensures the tenant's right to security of tenure and sale of his mobile home.
In practice, therefore, it is likely that agreements to which the Bill applies will include terms about site rules and procedures for varying them. The standard agreement produced by the National Federation of Site Operators following the 1975 Act included such terms. It provides that site rules may be varied only if a majority of residents agree. I understand that site owners who are not members of the NFSO also include such terms in their agreements. I think, therefore, that there is little danger that residents will be unaware of site rules or unable to influence them.
As I have explained, site rules will be effective only if reference is made to them in terms of the statutory agreement and all residents have the right to challenge those terms if they consider that a matter is not dealt with satisfactorily. I believe that that provides adequate protection for residents. The only effect of the amendment would be to allow a resident or site owner to ask the court to add a new term about site rules where previously there was none. I do not think that such a change would be of great benefit to residents. I therefore invite my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have almost reached the end of the Bill's passage through Parliament, although it will have to return to another place for consideration of the amendments that we have made. I think that the House will agree that, although the Bill has not taken a great deal of time in this House, the time spent on it has been lively and productive. The Bill has changed a good deal since it was introduced in another place. It was a good Bill then. It is a better Bill now.
The Bill strengthens the position of residents on mobile home sites in a number of important ways. It replaces the Mobile Homes Act 1975 which took the first steps towards a proper legal framework for the relationship between site owners and residents. That legislation was introduced as a private Member's Bill by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the present Bill is built on that foundation. Thus, the first measure was introduced by a Conservative Back-Bench Member and the second by a Conservative Government. All that the Labour party produced was a report about mobile homes in its last term of office. There can therefore be little doubt as to which party has done more for the residents of mobile homes.
The Bill makes a number of important changes in the legal position of mobile home residents. Following the Government amendments made today, the Bill will now guarantee security of tenure and the right to sell on site will apply to all residents entitled to protection under the Bill. The position of a resident who wishes to sell will be stronger because he will not have to offer the site owner first refusal and he will pay a maximum of 10 per cent. commission compared with the 15 per cent. fixed by the Labour Government. The Bill will allow residents to pass on to their heirs the value of their investment in their mobile homes even if the heirs are not living with them at the time of the death. It also clarifies the ability of an arbitrator to resolve disputes on a mobile home site and gives residents on local authority sites the same protection as those on private sites.
At the same time, the Bill will not stop site owners making a living. In fact, it may make little difference to the way in which the many responsible site owners already conduct their business. The Bill will allow them to negotiate pitch fees—and other matters that should be resolved locally — freely with the residents, subject to the right of either side to take a dispute to court. The Bill will not bring the Rent Acts on to mobile home sites. I shall be very surprised and disappointed if it causes owners to try to close their sites.
I believe that the Bill is fair to both site owners and residents and will provide a good basis on which their way of life can flourish and develop in the future. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: It seems to be almost a reflex for Ministers to look for a trumpet, however small, to blow. However, I do not grudge the Minister a little self-satisfaction in relation to the Bill as it is not a partisan measure and has been widely welcomed in all parts of the House. We were certainly prepared to give it a fair wind and to seek in Committee to improve what was basically an admirable piece of legislation. We have continued to try to be constructive and helpful and the Bill has passed through this House relatively quickly.
Perhaps I too may make a little dig, as in the latter part of the Report stage I sat with commendable and uncharacteristic patience through an almost theological debate between the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and some of his Back Bench colleagues about the Conservative approach to home ownership. However, all that is irrelevant. The important thing is that we are now well on our way to putting on the statute book a measure that makes important improvements in the legal status of a small but important group of people who in the past were often at risk and disadvantaged compared with home owners generally. It is right that that should be done, and I am glad that it has been done. I accept that security of tenure is important. That security has now arrived.
I also welcome the greater freedom to sell and to benefit from sale without giving too much of a pound of flesh to the site owner in commission.
I accept that the reduction from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. which can be ingathered by the owner is a change that will be widely welcomed. I think that on the whole the Minister has responded well to the points made in Committee. The amendments that were discussed earlier


this afternoon on the implied terms of contract, for example, will be widely welcomed by all interests in the field.
By and large, the discussions on the Bill have been nonpartisan, non-controversial and useful, and one cannot always say that about proceedings that we have to sit through in this place. The Opposition, therefore, welcome the measure and hope that it reaches the statute book. I say that sincerely, because if we believe all the rumours that we hear there is some prospect that it may not reach the statute book. Then the next Labour Government, early in their life, would have to consider whether to take it as it stands or perhaps to make refinements.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will be particularly pleased that this Bill is reaching its final stages in the House under your chairmanship, because I believe that it was you who, in 1977, when you were at the Department of the Environment, made a speech that forecast something of this kind. I am only sorry that you were not able during your previous incarnation as a Labour Minister to get it as far as has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who has piloted it through the House so effectively.
I wish to make three points. First, I have some disappointments about the Bill, but they are all marginal. I am disappointed that my hon. Friend was not able to overcome the pig-headed resistance of his Department and allow the Bill to be called the Park Homes Bill. They are not mobile homes; the industry does not call them mobile homes; they do not move. It is time the name was changed, but unfortunately the Department, and the Department alone, will be insisting on having notices and messages with the official paraphernalia of the Mobile Homes Bill when everybody knows that it is a misnomer. It is a pity that the Government have lent their support to the perpetuation of a myth.
I am sorry that in the passage of the Bill the Government also washed out the right of first refusal for the site operator, but there it is. I also believe that the Government were wrong to legislate by implied agreements. I do not believe that that is a very sound practice. It is complicated, it was not necessary, and I regret that it is in the Bill.
Those marginal criticisms, however, are outweighed by the manifest advantages of the Bill, which on balance is another feather in the cap of the Government and an addition to their admirable record on housing. It provides what I can only describe as a mobile home park residents' charter. I hope that in the explanatory booklet which the Government will be producing the Department will follow the example of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing whose series of booklets has been first class — the tenants' charter, the right to buy, the improvement grants, all set out in these admirable publications. I suggest that a further one called, I regret to say, "Mobile Home Residents' Charter" should come out quickly in the same attractive cover.
Equally, on the site owners' side of the coin I am very glad that the Government have got the Rent Acts and the rent officers off these sites. Nothing would have done more to prevent the investment that we need in future sites than the importation of the rigidities of this particular system, which has done nothing but harm.
I also believe that the Government were wise to retain the ability of the site owners to make some money, and therefore keep their businesses going, through the 10 per cent. commission on sales which take place on their sites. I know that there was pressure for that commission to be cut out altogether, but I think that the Government were wise to resist it.
I commend the Bill. I do not like it entirely, but I think that for many of the residents in my constituency, and indeed throughout East Anglia, it will be a source of security and satisfaction. I congratulate the Government on introducing it.

Mr. Lyell: I am glad to give the Bill an unreservedly warm welcome and to congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on the way they have dealt with it, the way they have listened to suggestions from the Back Benches, including my own, and on the now excellent form of the Bill. I hope that within a very few weeks it will be on the statute book.
I became involved in the question of mobile homes because of constituency problems in Beech park, Wiggington, near Tring, where people were literally being ripped off because they did not have the protection which this legislation will now give them. The practical problem was that they, in common with about two thirds of mobile home owners, did not have the agreement necessary to give them security of tenure on site, or the ability, above all, to sell their homes on site. As a result, if they wished to sell, they were charged an extra 10 per cent. commission—that was the way the company dealt with it—over the 15 per cent. which was then the maximum. That meant that they were charged about £2,500 on a £10,000 mobile home, and there are mobile homes today which are worth more than £20,000.
Mobile homes are the first step on the home ownership ladder, and it is characteristic of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing that he should have taken so much trouble, with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, to get it right and to create a fair and balanced framework for people who live in these often highly attractive mobile homes on small country parks such as are found in my constituency.
I believe that moving to implied terms —which achieves exactly the same effect as the standard terms which at one time I suggested — guarantees that everybody will have the protection which the Government seek to give them via this Bill. I am delighted that even today, at this very late stage, the Government were prepared to accept the amendment which will give the county court judge a residual discretion to allow an agreement to be terminated.
All in all, it has been a most interesting experience for me to see the problems arise and be constructively tackled by the Government, thus enhancing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, their excellent reputation in housing.

Sir Albert Costain: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on not agreeing to alter the name of the Bill. If it were called the Park Homes Bill, anybody calling his house Park house would be caught by the Bill, so it would be necessary to put in the Bill the definition that a park home was a mobile home.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

National Heritage Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

POWER OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM TO FORM COMPANIES

(1) With the consent of the Secretary of State and subject to any conditions he may impose, the Board may form or take part in forming one or more bodies corporate which (or each of which) has as its main object or objects one or more of those mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) The objects are—

(a) the production and publication of books, films or other informative material relating to art, craft or design,
(b) the commissioning of works of art, craft or design,
(c) the production of replicas or reproductions of works of art, craft or design, or of souvenirs,
(d) the sale of informative material relating to art, craft or design, of works of art, craft or design, of replicas or reproductions of such works, or of souvenirs, and
(e) the provision of catering or car parking or other services or facilities for the public at any premises occupied or managed by the Board.

(3) The Board may hold interests in any such body, exercise rights conferred by the holding of interests in it, and provide financial or other assistance to or in respect of it (including assistance by way of guarantee of its obligations).
(4) In this section references to works of design are to works illustrating the principles of design.
(5) This section is without prejudice to any power of the Board to undertake anything mentioned in subsection (2) by virtue of section 2.—[Mr. Channon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may take Government new clauses 2, 3 and 6 and Government amendment No. 34.
Amendment No. 43, in schedule 1, page 21, line 20, at end insert—
'(4) The Board shall have the power to organise and run subsidiary trading companies, the profits of which shall be covenanted to the Victoria and Albert Museum.'.
Amendment No. 53, in page 24, line 32, at end insert—
'(4) The Board shall have the power to organise and run subsidiary trading companies, the profits of which shall be covenanted to the Science Museum.'.
Amendment No. 59, in page 27, line 40, at end insert—
'(4) The Board shall have the power to organise and run subsidiary trading companies, the profits of which shall be covenanted to the Armouries.'.
Amendment No. 67, in page 31, line 33, at end insert—
'(4) The Board shall have the power to organise and run subsidiary trading companies, the profits of which shall be covenanted to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.'.

Mr. Channon: New clause 1 and the amendments that are taken with it deal with a very small but important point raised in Committee. I hope that the Government have now fully honoured the commitment that I gave at that stage to see whether express permission was necessary to enable the boards of the Victoria and Albert and science museums and the royal botanic gardens to establish trading companies. The amendments empower the boards to set up such companies with the consent of the appropriate Minister of the Crown and subject to conditions which he may stipulate. There is a broadly similar provision to be tabled in respect of the commission, for which, of course, my hon. Friend is responsible. The companies' objectives,


which are related to the respective functions of the institutions, are set out in subsection (2) and the boards are empowered to provide financial or other assistance to the companies.
I think that these proposals meet in full the anxieties which some hon. Members expressed in Committee. I think that we have met the points raised by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) in his amendment No. 43. I hope that the House will approve the new clause.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: The Opposition welcome the introduction of the new clause. We feel that it goes some way towards clearing up the real doubts expressed on both sides in Committee and by all parties there represented about the trading status of the museums. We accept that it is extremely important that the museums here designated should have the opportunity to commercialise some of their activities in a proper manner with appropriate legal standards and be able to keep such functions separate from their other activities.
The Minister's introduction of the new clause was somewhat laconic. I should like to hear rather more about how the trading companies will be established and the nature of their relationship with the board of trustees in each instance. There were extensive debates in another place on boards of trustees and whether, as Lord Annan and others suggested, they should contain within their ranks business expertise of a managerial variety. It was suggested that they should be composed of groups of what might be described as artistic Lord Sainsburys.
The phrasing of the new clause leaves the relationship between the board of trustees and the trading company somewhat unclear, and on that I shall welcome further information from the Minister. The nearest analogy to that which is being proposed for the national museums is the publications company of the British museum. The company is concerned with publishing books and catalogues. It seems clear that it was set up to subsidise other publishing activities, principally the more expensive catalogues which could not in themselves make money.
Later amendments relate to the covenanting of profits by the trading companies, or whatever other operation is undertaken, to the national museums. We said in Committee that it should he possible for money earned by one department or section of these important national institutions to be aggregated to the benefit of the institution as a whole without prejudice to the other aspects of the museum's work and activities, such as exposition, demonstration and research, which could not conceivably make money. Indeed, I do not think that any hon. Members would wish them to do so.
I should like to hear from the Minister whether it is possible for the profits that are made—assuming that profits will be made—by the trading companies to be ploughed back into the museum service as a whole, or whether they will have to be kept within the accounts of the museum company. If the latter, the Government will still not have met the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), myself and others in Committee to the effect that we wish the trading operations to subsidise all the activities of the national museums concerned.
Those are my main reservations about the new clause. I hope that it is clear to the House that I have a sneaking suspicion that we would be better placed if the new clause

had as a codicil the substance of what the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West and I were trying to achieve, rather than the relationship of the trading companies with the parent board of trustees and with the general economic activities of the museums being left in a vague and inexact form. Those economic activities will require substantial financial support each year. We do not want that to be imperilled if a particular trading company is successful. We want the trading companies to be successful but we do not want that to lead to any financial penalty — a reduction of grant-in-aid—in subsequent years.

Mr. Jim Lester: Itis true that we learn something every day, and today I learnt something about the way in which the House operates.
I shall try to make a speech within the rules of order on new clause 1 which will embrace the principles set out in amendment No. 44, which I tabled, which has not been selected because it has been misprined. Apparently an amendment that has been misprinted cannot be selected on Report. I ave learnt today to check everything that is printed in my name. I shall try to learn how to make a speech within the rules of order on an amendment that has not been selected by elating it to the new clause.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minsiter for the Arts recognises that, in giving tothe board the powers set out in the clause, the board will thereafter hold and be allowed to hold interests. I am sure that he will acknowledge that it should hold interests in the constitutent bodies which have played a great part in establishing the Victoria and Albert museum, the staff of which are anxious to retain the present connections.
As names go forward to the Prime Minster for selection for the board that will exercise the powers wset out in the new clause, I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that those who work at the V and A, who are concerned about the future and desire to see a straightforward transfer and continuation of tradition, will understand tha those who go forward tothe board to exercise the powers that are proposed will have the links that so concerned us in Committee, where we were trying to establish a balance between the powers of nominationm the patronage of the Prime Minister's office, and the review and alteration of the constituent elements of the V and A.
When my right hon. Friend replies to this brief debate, i hope that he will give the reassurance that we might hve obtained more directly if we had been able to debate amendment No. 44. This is not a game. There was a serious debate on this issue in Committee— a debate that lasted for more than on hour. We were trying to redraft a provision in a way that would be accpetable to both sides. That attempt, for technical reasons, has not been successful.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand the deep feeling and genuine anxiety of those who will be advising on and implementing the responsibilities inherent in the new clause. I hope also that he will do everything in his power to allay that genuine anxiety.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It seems that congratulations on three counts are in order. First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts on bringing forward the new clause. Secondly, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) on the ingenious interpretation that he was able to place upon it. Thirdly, I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy


Speaker, on your charitable indulgence in allowing my hon. Friend to place such an interpretation upon the clause. However, I think that he raised an extremely important issue. It was one which exercised the minds of members of the Committee on the Government and Opposition Benches. I am sure that it has not been lost on my right hon. Friend, in spite of the unfortunate technical deficiency that has prevented us from having the debate we all wished to have.
I welcome the new clause, which goes a long way to meeting the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), myself and others in Committee. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. I should have liked the new clause to be a little firmer. We are concerned that there should be total freedom for the board to trade. The museums should be able to capitalise their assets in every way and should not be penalised for so doing. We do not want to hear again the sort of remarks I have heard from the Imperial war museum and other bodies that they have been magnificently successful in their trading and as a result have been penalised when grants were being voted. I am sure that under the enlightened administration of my right hon. Friend that will not happen. He showed sympathy in Committee and I welcome his assurance to the House that it is his intention that it should not happen. I welcome the new clause, which adds materially to an excellent Bill.

7 pm

Dr. David Clark: I understand that we are discussing a series of amendments with new clause 1, including new clause 6. I should like to relate my remarks entirely to new clause 6. I was interested in the ingenious speech of the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester). It was apposite that he talked about learning. The proceedings on the Bill have been a learning exercise for the Government. When it was introduced in the House of Lords it was a ragbag. The other place improved it beyond recognition and in Committee here there were further improvements.
New clause 6 is an example of the improvements. It shows that the Government recognise that public enterprise has a role in initiatives in the presentation of our heritage. It is pleasing that this Government, of all Governments, should establish publicly owned bodies which will also be manufacturing bodies. I am glad that in Committee we managed to persuade the Government of the wisdom of that step.
The handicap in the original clause, which new clause 6 will replace, is that it restricted the sale of guide books and literature relating to ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England. Only guide books and other associate handbooks relating to English monuments could be sold in any of the trading concerns of the commission. We pointed out to the Government in Committee that there should be clarification that on Hadrian's wall, for example, it will be possible for the shop at Housteads to sell guide books and maps relating to Scotland. It is important that that should be possible because many foreign visitors who sail into the great port on the Tyne tour the north of England before going to Wales or Scotland. I should like clarification from the Government that my interpretation is correct.

Mr. Channon: I sympathise deeply with my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) for the fact that there were technical difficulties about debating his amendment which no doubt we would have come to later. Anyone who tries to draft amendments knows the difficulties. The Government will bear in mind what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) said about the necessity to have suitable trustees who will enjoy the confidence of the staff, with their long traditions in the museums and their deep concern about the future, and the confidence of the public. Obviously, it will be for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make the decisions, but I shall ensure that she is aware of the concern of the staff and the need for the appointment of people of sufficient calibre and expertise.
As to the points raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) about the commission and new clause 6, which is similar to new clauses 1 and 2, my hon. Friend has authorised me to say that these powers are wide enough. It will be all right for the commission to have a company that will sell maps covering historic sites in England and Scotland or books dealing with monuments or historic buildings throughout Great Britain. It will not be limited to material dealing with England. The points raised by the hon. Gentleman are well taken and have been covered.
I should point out to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) that there was doubt when the Bill was introduced whether it was necessary to have such powers. Indeed, I am not sure that it is necessary. The powers might have existed even without the new clause. However, he will recall that the Comptroller and Auditor General, in a report some years ago, suggested that Parliament should be informed of proposals of this kind, and in 1967–68 the Public Accounts Committee took the view that statutory authority should be obtained for arrangements of the kind to which we are referring. The Government thought it better to take specific powers so that no one could later criticise the trustees for misusing their powers.
The hon. Gentleman will note that the trustees have to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State and will be subject to any conditions that he may impose. Many of the details will be the subject of negotiation between the trustees and the Secretary of State. There is no intention of laying down detailed blueprints as to how many trustees shall serve on a company and how they shall run it. Presumably the trustees will put forward a proposal to the Secretary of State and, if it is at all reasonable, he will approve it. The Government have not gone into this in sufficient detail to have firm views on how the companies should be set up. It is not appropriate that they should. This will be a matter for the trustees. After all, we have the experience of British Museum Publications Ltd., an organisation which can develop a commercial approach to pricing, staffing, marketing and management. British Museum Publications Ltd. has been in business for 10 years, and a subsidiary company, British Museum Periodicals Ltd., was formed a few years later. The Government are determined to allow the trustees maximum freedom to trade, as hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish. The hon. Gentleman need not have any fears about this.
The board will be given the necessary powers to control the company and provide financial assistance, including assistance to meet any liabilities. Of course, it is the clear


intention that the profits can go to the board. I do not think that any general point of difficulty could arise. The detailed arrangements for the working of the companies will be a matter for negotiation between the trustees and the Secretary of State at the time. We are determined that they should have as much freedom as necessary to carry out their proper commercial functions. I believe that is the wish of hon. Members on both sides of the House. We shall bear it in mind when trustees come forward with proposals.

Mr. Whitehead: With the leave of the House, I wish to press the Minister on a further point. We are anxious that the profits earned by the trading companies shall be allowed to accrue to the benefit of the museums as a whole. The Minister has confirmed that. Can he also confirm that any sums earned will be without prejudice to the amounts voted out of public funds in ensuing years?

Mr. Channon: With respect, that is a meaningless assurance to give. If a company were to make a profit of £1 million and I were to say that it would have no effect on the grant a year later, no one would be any the wiser. What grants the boards get at the end of the day is the subject of negotiation at the time between my Department and the Treasury. It will always be that way. Any assurances to the contrary are not worth the paper that they are written on.
It is my intention that the museum should have maximum freedom, and not be penalised for trading successfully. However, as I explained in Committee, there is a special situation with regard to revotes. I hope not to have to explain it at length to the House. It is a difficult question. The rules of the House and of Government accounting make it difficult to move forward, but there is a report on revotes which the Government will have to consider. No doubt the House will be able to take it further.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

POWER OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SCIENCE MUSEUM TO FORM COMPANIES

'(1) With the consent of the Secretary of State and subject to any conditions he may impose, the Board may form or take part in forming one or more bodies corporate which (or each of which) has as its main object or objects one or more of those mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) The objects are—

(a) the production and publication of books, films or other informative material relating to science and technology.
(b) the production of replicas or reproductions of objects relating to science and technology, or of souvenirs,
(c) the sale of informative material relating to science and technology, or of replicas or reproductions of objects relating to science and technology, or of souvenirs, and
(d) the provision of catering or car parking or other services or facilities for the public at any premises occupied or managed by the Board.

(3) The Board may hold interests in any such body, exercise rights conferred by the holding of interests in it, and provide financial or other assistance to or in respect of it (including assistance by way of guarantee of its obligations).
(4) In this section references to science and technology include references to the development of those subjects.
(5) This section is without prejudice to any power of the Board to undertake anything mentioned in subsection (2) by virtue of section 9.'.—[Mr Chanon.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3

POWER OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW, TO FORM COMPANIES

'(1) With the consent of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and subject to any conditions he may impose, the Board may form or take part in forrning one or more bodies corporate which (or each of which) has as its main object or objects one or more of those mentioned Lri subsection (2).
(2) The objects are—

(a) the production and publication of books, films or other informative material relating to the science of plants or related subjects or to the Board and their functions,
(b) the production of souvenirs relating to plants or to the Board's activities,
(c) the sale of plants produced by the Board or objects relating to plants, of informative material relating to the science of plants or related subjects, or of souvenirs relating to plants or to the Board's activities, and
(d) the provision of catering or car parking or other services or facilities for the public at any land occupied or managed by the Board.

(3) The Board may hold interests in any such body, exercise rights conferred by the holding of interests in it, and provide financial or other assistance to or in respect of it (including assistance by way of guarantee of its obligations).
(4) This section is without prejudice to any power of the Board to undertake anything mentioned in subsection (2) by virtue of section 22.'—[Mr. Channon.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 4

RECORDS: POWER OF ENTRY

'(1) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Commission may at any reasonable time enter any land in England for the purpose of inspecting it with a view to obtaining inforrnation for inclusion in the Commission's records made under section 30(2) (d); and the following provisions of this section shall apply to any such power of entry.
(2) The power includes power for any person entering any land in exercise of the power to take with him any assistance or equipment reasonably required for the purpose to which the entry relates and to do there anything reasonably necessary for carrying out the purpose.
(3) The Comission may not authorise the power to be exercised in relation to any land unless they know or have reason to believe there is in, on or under the land an ancient monument or historic building; and in this subsection "ancient monument" and "historic building" have the meanings given by section 30(9).
(4) A person may not in the exercise of the power—

(a) enter any building or part of a building occupied as a dwelling-house without the consent of the occupier;
(b) demand admission as of right to any land which is occupied unless prior notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier not less than 24 hours before admission is demanded.

(5) A person seeking to enter any land in exercise of the power shall, if so required by or on behalf of the owner or occupier of the land, produce evidence of his authority before entering.
(6) Where any works are being carried out on any land in relation to which the power is exercisable, a person acting in the exercise of the power shall comply with any reasonable requirements or conditions imposed by the person by whom the works are being carried out for the purpose of preventing interference with or delay to the works; but any requirements or conditions so imposed shall not be regarded as reasonable for the purposes of this subsection if compliance with them would in effect frustrate the exercise of the power or the purpose of the entry.
(7) Any person who intentionally obstructs a person acting in the exercise of the power shall be guilty of an offence and liable


on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (as defined in section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982).
(8) Where in the exercise of the power damage has been caused to land or chattels on land, any person interested in the land or chattels may recover compensation in respect of the damage from the Commission.
(9) Any claim for compensation under subsection (8) shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State for that purpose; and the power to make regulations under this subsection shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(10) Any question of disputed compensation under subsection (7) shall be referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal; and in relation to the determination of any such question sections 2(2) to (5) and 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 shall apply (construing the references in section 4 to the acquiring authority as references to the Commission).'.—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause deals with the commission's power to enter land for purposes connected with its functions. The clause, which essentially gives the commission some of the powers currently enjoyed by the Secretary of State under the 1979 Act, enables it to enter land to inspect it and thus obtain important information to be included in any record that it may make under its general recording power in clause 30(2)(d). It may exercise this right only if it knows or has reason to believe that there is an ancient monument or historic building in, on, or under the land. The owner's rights are further protected by subsection (4) about obtaining the occupier's consent before entry; subsection (5) requiring proof of authority; subsection (6) about protecting and facilitating any works that happen to be in progress; and subsections (8), (9) and (10) about compensation for any damage caused. This is an appropriate and useful power for the commission, which complements its functions. That is important. The House will recognise that it will enable it, the commission, subject to the necessary safeguards, to fulfil a most important part of its duties.

Dr. David Clark: The new clause initially gave rise to some doubts, because we are conscious of the rights of individuals. Therefore, we examined it in great detail. I wish that we had had it a little earlier. It is right to have it, but the Government have been a little slow in bringing it forward, bearing in mind that the Bill has been in Committee. However, I see the need for having such a clause. Heritage is not a private conserve. Therefore, it is only right and proper for the future that recording is as complete and accurate as possible.
I hope that the Minister will reply to one other point. We have referred to the power of the commission, but what about the power of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments for England which, in a sense, performs the same function when it comes to recording? I raise this matter because quite soon we shall discuss the possibility of integrating the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments for England with the commission. It would be useful if we knew what power the Royal Commission has in this respect.

Mr. Cormack: In moving the new clause my hon. Friend said that it was appropriate and useful. It is more than that. It is essential. Like the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), I am sorry that it has taken a little time to come, but I welcome it. I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure me that it will give the commission the opportunity to prevent what has happened in my constituency relating to an apparently undistinguished 18th century building. No one had a chance to go inside unless invited, because it was a private house. After planning permission for extensive alteration was given, it turned out that the house had some magnificent 18th century rooms. I take it that the new clause would enable the commission, should it suspect that any hidden gem is there, to investigate in due time and advise the local authority, so that, if planning consent is given, it is given at least in the full knowledge of what would be destroyed.
If my hon. Friend can give me an assurance about what I am sure is the effect of the new clause, I should be grateful, and so would many of my constituents who have been concerned about the Heath house, Wombourn. This is a valuable and essential new clause, and I welcome it.

Mr. Macfarlane: I understand and sympathise with the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed. Many people who have read of that problem in his constituency will be deeply concerned. I can give him the assurance that he is seeking. The commission will have such powers for purposes connected with its functions. That is an important dimension.
We shall discuss later the role of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments for England, which we talked about at length in Committee. I should like to put the mind of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) at rest. The new clause has no effect on the Royal Commission's operation. Both bodies will have recording functions. The most important dimension is that we have incorporated this important power of entry into the Bill, although some hon. Members may feel that it is at the eleventh hour. The Bill has been worked out slowly in many ways, but we now have the right composition. I am certain that the new clause will add greatly to its powers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

MONUMENTS ETC. PARTLY SITUATED IN ENGLAND

`(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that the Commission shall have such functions as—

(a) he thinks appropriate (having regard to their functions in relation to monuments, buildings, gardens, areas or sites situated in England), and
(b) are specified in the order.

in relation to the parts situated in England of any monuments, buildings, gardens, areas or sites which are only partly so situated and which are specified in the order.
(2) For the purpose of making such provision, any such order may contain—

(a) amendments of section 30 or 31, and
(b) amendments of any section or Schedule amended by Schedule 4 (including consequential amendments relating to the parts of monuments, buildings, gardens, areas or sites not situated in England).

(3) Any such order shall have effect subject to such supplementary provisions (which may include savings and transitionals) as may be specified in the order.


(4) Nothing in this section permits the Commission to be given a function of making regulations or other instruments of a legislative character.
(5) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 40, 83, 84, 91, 98, 99, 109 and 117.

Mr. Macfarlane: The new clause is needed to clarify the position of monuments or buildings that straddle a national border. I know that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) feels passionately about this. The new clause also deals with powers in relation to those monuments.

Dr. David Clark: The confusion about this matter arises from clause 37, which states:
This Act does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland, except so far as it amends or repeals any enactment which extends to Scotland or Northern Ireland (as the case may be).
I found that a little confusing. Almost everyone who has read the Bill has found it a little confusing. There has been a great deal of mystery about what powers the commission will have in Scotland and Wales. I welcome the new clause. I hope that I have not implied that Hadrian's wall should be the boundary between Scotland and England. As we all know, Hadrian's wall is considerably south of the present border. I would not wish to cede parts of our country to our northern neighbour.
Amendment No. 40 seems acceptable to me, but it is not clear whether it would apply to monuments that were situated partly in England and partly in Wales. Amendment No. 40 refers to giving
power to amend any enactment which extends to Scotland.
There is no mention of Wales. I wonder whether that contingency is covered by later Government amendments. A bridge or a building might straddle the English-Welsh border. It would be wrong if we omitted such cases simply through oversight. I know that that is a rather tricky and nit-picking question, but it would be helpful if the Minister could give us an assurance about it.

Mr. Cormack: This is a useful and helpful proposal. Many of us are longing for the day when Scotland and Wales have a system which is similar to that which we are giving England in this Bill. We believe that the Government have been extremely enlightened and they have had strong backing from the Opposition.
We warmly welcome the founding of a new commission. It is an excellent development. The new clause shows formally that the Government would like Wales and Scotland to enjoy the same benefits in due course. I hope that it will be soon.

Mr. Macfarlane: I am sure that the words of wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) will have been noted. We discussed the subject at some length in Committee and I am grateful for his comments. This group of amendments confirm the status of monuments or buildings that straddle a national border. That includes Wales, although the boundary between England and Wales is not as clearly defined as

that between England and Scotland. I accept the point that Hadrian's wall is not the border between England and Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

POWER OF COMMISSION TO FORM COMPANIES

'(1) The Commission may form or take part in forming one or more bodies corporate which (or each of which) has as its main object or objects one or more of those mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) The objects are—

(a) the production and publication in England of books, films or other informative material relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings.
(b) the production in England of souvenirs relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings,
(c) the sale in England of informative material relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings, or of souvenirs, and
(d) the provision in England of catering or car parking or other services or facilities for members of the public visiting ancient monuments or historic buildings.

(3) The Commission may hold interests in any such body, exercise rights conferred by the holding of interests in it, and provide financial or other assistance to or in respect of it (including assistance by way of guarantee of its obligations).
(4) In this section "ancient monument" and "historic building" have the same meanings as in section 30.
(5) This section is without prejudice to any power of the Commission to undertake anything mentioned in subsection (2) by virtue of section 30.'—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

ROYAL COMMISSION ON HISTORICAL MONUMENTS (ENGLAND)

' .—(1) The Secretary of State, the Commission and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) shall consult together as to the desirability, or otherwise, of some or all of the responsibilities of the Royal Commission being assumed by the Commission and as to how best this should he done, if proceeded with.
(2) The Secretary of State shall present a Report to each House of Parliament on these consultations and, if the Repon: so recommends, Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for some or all of the Royal Commission's responsibilities to be assumed by the Commission and, where appropriate, for the Royal Commission to cease to exist.
(3) An Order under this section may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as may he necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the Order, including provision adapting section 30.
(4) No Order shall be made under this section unless the draft of the Order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(5) The consultations referred to in subsection (1) shall be begun within two years from the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay his Report before both Houses of Parliament within twelve months of the commencement of those consultations and if his Report recommends in the affirmative the draft Order in Council referred to in subsection (4) shall be the subject of debate by, and resolution of, both Houses of Parliament within a further six months.'.—[Dr. David Clark.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. David Clark: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is the most contentious matter that we shall discuss today. It has excited a great deal of argument in the other


place and in Committee. I have thought about it deeply as, I know, has the Minister and many other hon. Members. Indeed, many hon. Members have changed their minds about it. I echo what the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) said about there being a general welcome for the new commission. I have taken some flak from people who think that I have been too enthusiastic about the new commission. Nevertheless, the presentation and protection of our heritage has not been as it might have been and this is an appropriate time to make a positive step. I am sure that the Government are right to propose a new commission.
The Opposition believe that the commission will fire on all four cylinders only if it has the powers of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. I know that the Government decided only at the ninth hour that the Royal Commission should not be subsumed in the new commission. I know that members of the Royal Commission who believe that it should be kept separate have lobbied the Government. I understand the reasons for that.
The Royal Commission is an old-established institution which has done a great deal of good work. The people who work in it are fine academics who produce much excellent research and many publications, but it is also felt that the Royal Commission is a rather sleepy backwater. If we are to produce a new image for the protection and presentation of our heritage, it is important that we increase and change the guidance without causing a loss of academic standards. We should move the Royal Commission from its rather Edwardian attitude at least into the second Elizabethan period.
I know that there are ruffled feathers and vested interests. Few people like change if they are personally involved but there comes a time when, for the general good, they must be persuaded to accept change. The new clause does not require that, as of tomorrow, the Royal Commission must be brought incorporated into the new commission. That is probably too hasty. We have tried to devise a formula whereby, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the commissioners, the House will be required to make a decision in about three years. We could iron out many of the difficulties in that time.
There is another argument why the Royal Commission should be brought under the aegis of the new commission. The National Monuments Record is a tool that the Historic Buildings Council and Ancient Monuments Board have had to use to do their excellent work. Perhaps I can take this opportunity to express my gratitude to those bodies for the excellent work that they have done. The National Monuments Record is the archive of those two bodies where records, plans and photographs are kept and research is done.
There will be difficulties if the Royal Commission and the National Monuments Record are not included in the new commission. The two bodies must remain in the same place. The Opposition have reservations about that which I shall not explore now. It is vital that the National Monuments Record should be part of the new commission so that people in its offices may freely avail themselves of the record.
I know that Ministers have said that my wish can be accommodated by modern technology, software, computers and the rest, but it is my experience, having examined heritage and countryside legislation, that we are

always short of coppers. I do not believe that this or any other Government will be able to devote the necessary capital to equip a modern technological laboratory with the necessary copiers, software and so on. I am not alone in holding that view. In correspondence to The Times recently, Mr. Andrew Selkirk, the editor of Current Archaeology, said:
The greatest virtue of the original proposals was that they would bring together the Ancient Monuments Inspectorate and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, two bodies with largely overlapping functions which already exist side by side in the same building.
There is also a plea from Cecil Farthing, the former secretary of the National Monuments Record, who argues that the new commission must contain the Royal Commission and its records office.
7.30 pm
There are two sides to the argument, but if the Government consider the matter in the way that the Opposition have tried to consider it—I know that the Government wish the new commission to work—they must question why the lobbying to keep the Royal Commission separate comes from a high level in another place. Lord Adeane, who is chairman of the Royal Commission, rightly feels strongly about the matter and could express his views forcefully in the other place. I do not try to push him too hard, but we have given a time limit and it would be natural for the chairman of the Royal Commission to be a commissioner in the new organisation.
I do not ask the Government to change their mind, but I hope that they will grant a stay of execution. The new clause will allow the House to make a decision within a set period of about three years, and during that time we could iron out the difficulties so that the new commission can work as effectively as possible.

Mr. Cormack: As the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) knows, when we started on this road I was on his side, but the more I considered the matter the more I became convinced that it would be wrong to force this merger. Shotgun marriages do not make for happy families. I hope that in due course the two bodies will wish to come together, but it should be no part of our function to force them together. I admire the eloquence and the persuasive passion with which the hon. Gentleman spoke, but, reluctantly, I cannot support him.
However, the hon. Gentleman made an important point when he mentioned the National Monuments Record. We did not discuss it at great length in Committee, and it was not mentioned in the other place, so it may be appropriate to refer to it now. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will use his best endeavours to ensure that both bodies come together to discuss the co-ordination of the National Monuments Record. Anyone who has studied, however perfunctorily, our architectural heritage must be grateful to the National Monuments Record. Anyone who has written about our heritage, including myself, should be even more grateful.
I quote from a letter that I received this week from one of Britain's most distinguished architectural historians, who must remain anonymous, but whose words should be noted carefully. He said:
Though it seems churlish and out of context to write a letter whose sole purpose is to criticise a much-valued institution (and, of course, I have used it with gratitude for every book I have ever written), I think every architectural historian I know would agree


that it has suffered lamentably from lack of forceful, imaginative direction from the top. As a result its photographic coverage of the buildings of England is bizarre, haphazard and unrepresentative. A typical file of a small village dominated by a handsome eighteenth-century country house and a parish church with fine neo-classical monuments in it will contain no photograph of the country house, three murky snapshots of the church taken by an amateur in the 1940s and 50 recent photographs of the back bedroom of a cruck cottage.
That is an extreme example, but it illustrates a valid point. I hope that my hon. Friend will be glad that I have drawn that example to his attention, and I know that he will do what he can to ensure that the National Monuments Record becomes truly worthy and completely representative of our architectural heritage.
I do not support a forced merger. I hope that there will be the closest co-operation and co-ordination between the bodies. I hope that it will be encouraged from the top and that, from that co-operation, will come a comprehensive National Monuments Record of which we can be proud. I hope that at the end of the day the two bodies will become so confident of each other's abilities and so trusting of each other's values that they will wish to come to Parliament and ask, "Please may we become one body?"

Mr. Stephen Ross: For once I must disagree with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). His great love of ancient bodies and monuments persuades him to support the Royal Commission. I received an invitation to visit the Royal Commission that I have not yet taken up—I apologise to the commission for that—but, like the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the material supplied to me and the conversations that I have had convince me that we should move in the direction of a merger. The new clause would enable us to do that. Although we may not win this battle, I fear that we shall live to regret it. I am sure that if Lord Rayner were let loose on the bodies he would recommend an immediate merger.
In local government reorganisation, a great mistake was made in my constituency 10 years ago and we are still suffering from it. We may not get it right for another two or three years. The late Lord Mountbatten said to me, "Do you know how the Isle of Wight got its independence?" I said, "No, sir, I do not." He said, "It's all through the Rookley Women's Institute. They came to Romsey to give me a map depicting 'UDI for the Isle of Wight'. I took it to the Queen, who put it in Ted Heath's Dispatch Box. That was how you got your independence." Something similar has happened with regard to the pleading of the Royal Commission.
Even if we do not accept the new clause, there must be provision in the Bill to enable a future merger. I fear that people will take up positions that will make such a merger much more difficult in the years ahead and that the new commission, which I warmly welcome, will not fulfil its role to the full. There will be no problems and disagreements, and the all-embracing role that we hope the commission will enjoy to enable it to add to our quality of life will be denied to it because of some silly disagreements between two bodies that cover much the same areas.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: Most of the arguments that I support on this enabling clause have already been advanced by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). However, I wish to add my

comments, because this is the most contentious issue that we shall discuss this evening. The Government appear to have dug in their heels, or even to have dug a trench, on this matter in the most adamant and irrational way. It is difficult, having attended debates in Committee and having read carefully again today the speeches in the House of Lords, to understand the motives behind such entrenched resistance by Ministers who otherwise — I hope that they appreciate that I am not given to flattery or sycophancy—enabled us to make good progress on an excellent measure that is greatly welcomed.
However, on this matter the Minister has been overawed, perhaps by representations from another place, to the extent that he has been prepared to adopt a thoroughly retrograde approach to the matter. I read again today the speech made by Lord Adeane. It was a good and attractive speech, but he does not pretend to be impartial, and nor could he. As we all know, he is the chairman of the Royal Commission and it is right that he should defend his wicket. One gets the impression that the noble Lord's main concern is to preserve the Royal Commission as a sort of ancient monument in its own right, and to protect it from the predatory designs of some modern legislative upstart of dubious antecedents.
Of course, that attitude and the Minister's present intransigence fly in the face of all reality and of the Government's purpose in creating the commission and bringing this measure to fruition. The Royal Commission should not be allowed to continue as a completely independent body outside the new parameters that the Government have rightly drawn. It would seriously detract from the authority and status of the new body—which we all agree should be invested with the maximum strength and reputation from the outset — if the Government refused to accept the new clause. The Government may undo much of the good that they seek to do if they ignore our argument.
As the hon. Member for South Shields said, we do not propose an immediate sentence of death on the commission in seeking to persuade the Government about the virtue of our proposals. We simply want to introduce machinery of an amiable character as a result of which the two bodies can work together and can agree on their respective futures. I hope that they will do so with a view, after a short but respectable liaison, to merging. At this stage it would amount to no more than an exchange of engagement rings, with all the hope and value of the ultimate permanent merger of the two bodies into a valuable, combined unit.
What could be more inefficient and illogical than a new commission responsible for the care and maintenance of monuments and an old commission responsible for cataloguing those same monuments pursuing their separate and independent paths? It is absurd that the new commission should need to have recourse to the National Monuments Record — the key files — because the cataloguing remains in the hands of the old body. It is foolish of the Minister to persist in arguing that the records can be duplicated and that a new set of records can be created by modern technology for the benefit of the new commission.
Why do we even have to contemplate such unnecessary and expensive duplication of records? The supreme importance and value of the new commission must be understood. It is the new commission that will have the immediate and urgent tasks to perform and decisions to


make. It is the new commission — not the Royal Commission—that will have to decide what is to happen here and now to historic monuments and houses. The Royal Commission has been trundling along in its quiet and no doubt scholarly fashion for the past 75 years, producing valuable but somewhat dated academic material. Some of the distinguished academics and figures in the Royal Commission should become involved in the livelier work and responsibilities envisaged for the new commission.
Reference has been made to the possibility of Lord Adeane becoming a commissioner. Everyone would agree that he would add lustre and distinction to the new commission. Other members of the staff of the Royal Commission would welcome the opportunity to work for the new commission. By refusing to accept the arguments in support of the new clause, the Minister is failing to do justice to his Bill. Even at this late hour, I must ask him to reconsider his position and to prepare the ground now for a merger which will, in any event, be inevitable in due course. However, at present that merger may take place only after unhappy years of division and friction. We wish to avoid that.

Mr. Macfarlane: We have had a useful discussion on this problem and I am grateful to those hon. Members who have paid tribute to the work of the Royal Commission. I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), and I note the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) and others about the National Monuments Record.
However, I must express surprise at some of the phrases chosen by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). He talked about intransigence, heels being dug in and entrenched positions. I though that my right hon. Friend the Minister and I had provided perhaps the most malleable combination of Ministers both in Committee and on Second Reading that had been seen for a very long time. I was grateful for contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, because we wanted to construct a thoroughly workable and effective measure.
I should like to repeat an important point about the role of the Royal Commission and its historical value. It certainly is an Edwardian creation, because it was set up during that part of the century. However, it is not a sleepy backwater, as has been suggested. It has done much valuable work and the hon. Member for South Shields paid eloquent tribute to that. As hon. Members will acknowledge, we have not found this problem easy, and we had a full debate on it in Committee. The former Secretary of State for the Environment, now Secretary of State for Defence, and his successor had long and detailed discussions both last year and this year before Second Reading. We discussed the issue fully with many people.
On the one hand, there is need for continued scholarly independence, not least in order to enlist the trust of those who are potential providers of vital information. On the other hand, there are the benefits of combining all the major bodies into a coherent unit, using a single data base — that provided by the National Monuments Record. We have thought very carefully about these matters and

we do not dismiss any of the comments that have been made, contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. We found the discussions on this clause in the other place most helpful, and we listened to the contributions made by Lord Adeane. They were also constructive. It is fair to say that the balance of opinion expressed in the other place was that the Royal Commission should continue in existence, although there was concern about the relationship between the Royal Commission and the new commission when the latter was set up. I believe that the balance of opinion in Standing Committee was the same.
The Government's decision which Lord Avon announced in another place on Third Reading was that we had firmly decided not to incorporate the Royal Commission in the new commission. That seemed to be the right decision in all the circumstances and, judging by the general tenor of comment after that decision, most people agreed with that view.
The future relationship between the Royal Commission and the new commission will be important.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend were responsible for appointing Sir Arthur Drew, the chairman of the Ancient Monuments Board, to the Historic Buildings Council. That was before merger took place. There is nothing to preclude such cross-membership, even if there is no merger.

Mr. Macfarlane: That is an essential ingredient for all those who have to work together in all the important bodies. I was delighted to make that appointment because it brought integration well to the front.
I am confident that there will be a dialogue between the two bodies about relationships and working methods as soon as people are appointed who can speak for the commission. There are frequent exchanges of ideas and information now between my Department and the Royal Commission. That will have to continue. The Government have noted the Royal Commission's very constructive approach to this, as stated by Lord Adeane, and in the light of that they do not see the need for statutory provision on the lines of the new clause. We hope that working arrangements will be made generally known to all concerned when they are sorted out.
Although it would not make sense, as the new clause may imply, to move the RCHM's database by transferring the National Monuments Record away from it to the new commission, concern has properly been expressed about the continued accessibility of that database to the public, and to specialists who need to refer to it. Lord Adeane's comments in another place are highly relevant to this issue, since he made clear the way in which modern information technology could be used to lessen many of the problems of accessibility. Of course, many of those problems are hypothetical, and would become real only if the new commission were to move its location. That is a matter for the new body to consider when established. For the present, the NMR is there and publicly accessible, and can be used by the staff of the commission, or the staff of the Department of the Environment, or anyone else. Modern technology, using microfilm and computerised techniques, should progressively make access to NMR material more straightforward, with greater facility, speed and quality of reproduction, and, if need be, transmission


of material. At the same time, the valuable original material will be safeguarded. Those are points which the two bodies will have to discuss.

Dr. David Clark: Is the Minister prepared to give the House a commitment that the necessary finance will be available for the technological innovations to which Lord Adeane referred in another place?

Mr. Macfarlane: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance here and now. However, his important comments will be well noted by my right hon. Friend and myself. Indeed, many people who represent the important bodies have come forward and made that specific point, and it is very much taken on board.
It was suggested in Committee that the improvement in accessibility through these means would be very expensive and that the necessary resources would not be available. I cannot accept that. The Government have all along accepted and underlined the importance of the NMR to the work of anyone in this area, especially the commission, and to the extent that resources are required to ensure that the new commission will have adequate, efficient and proper access the Government will provide them. My right hon. Friend is, of course, the source of funds for the Royal Commission as well as the new commission and it would make no sense to give a good start to the latter without considering the impact on the former. None of that is to say that I believe that there will be great resource needs for this purpose or problems of access. I simply wish to record the fact that the Government are fully seized of the issue and willing to stand by its possible implication.
The Government believe that much of what has been said in debate has been based on uncertainties about the Royal Commission's role, and on hypothetical assumptions about what might happen in the future. The statements made both by the Government and by the chairman of the Royal Commission should have done much to allay concern. The advantages of a separate scholarly body are self-evident and acknowledged by many. We think it right to leave matters to be developed in discussion and close collaboration between those concerned rather than to seek to enshrine unnecessary material in legislation.
I hope that the House will feel that we are not being intransigent. We have listened to the points of view of many people inside and outside both Houses. They may not necessarily accord with the views of the Opposition, but I believe that the balance is absolutely right. Dialogue and collaboration between the two bodies are of the essence.

Mr. Sandelson: I listened to the Minister with great interest, but I am not persuaded that he has established any philosophic justification for keeping the two bodies separate. He said that there is a body of opinion, both inside and outside the two Houses, which supports his case. Will he explain the philosophic basis for maintaining two separate bodies concerned essentially with the same task? I recognise that the Royal Commission has its academic limb, but would not it be sensible and administratively appropriate in this day and age for that limb to be incorporated into the main body—that being the new commission?

Mr. Macfarlane: The whole House and those who attended the Committee when we debated these matters

fully were seized of the argument that we put forward. The hon. Gentleman was engaged in a conversation when I was advancing some of my concerns. The whole House will recognise the need to understand the importance of the Royal Commission. Those who have followed the Bill closely will fully acknowledge the role of the new commission. I hope that the Opposition will feel that we have noted what is contained in the new clause and will, on reflection, withdraw it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time::—

The House divided: Ayes 8, Noes 61.

Division No. 144]
[7.57 pm


AYES


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Sandelson, Neville


Parker, John



Penhaligon, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pitt, William Henry
Mr. Phillip Whitehead and


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Dr. David Clark.


NOES


Ancram, Michael
Le Marchant, Spencer


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lyell, Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Macfarlane, Neil


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Major, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Mather, Carol


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Chapman, Sydney
Murphy, Christopher


Churchill, W. S.
Neubert, Michael


Cope, John
Onslow, Cranley


Cormack, Patrick
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Costain, Sir Albert
Rossi, Hugh


Cranborne, Viscount
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Dykes, Hugh
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Steen, Anthony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Stradling Thomas, J.


Goodlad, Alastair
Thompson, Donald


Gorst, John
Waddington, David


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Wakeham, John


Greenway, Harry
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grylls, Michael
Wickenden, Keith


Hamilton, Hon A.
Wolfson, Mark


Heddle, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)



Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Tellers for the Noes;


Jessel, Toby
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. Ian Lang.


Kilfedder, James A.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8

THE COMMISSION: GOVERNMENT OWNED AND USED SCHEDULED MONUMENTS AND LISTED BUILDINGS

`(1) The Secretary of State shall afford the Secretary of State for the Environment all reasonable facilities such that the commission may from time to time carry out inspections of, and advise upon, all Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings in the Secretary of State's ownership and use.
(2) The Commission shall from time to time report to the Minister responsible for each Government department (and also to the Secretary of State for the Environment) on the state of maintenance and repair of scheduled monuments and listed buildings in the ownership or use of his department and may advise him on their proper maintenance and repair and as to uses


appropriate to them and the Commission may publish such of those reports as the Secretary of State for the Environment may allow.'—[Dr. David Clark.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. David Clark: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Hon. Members were surprised to learn in Committee that even the Secretary of State for the Environment has no right to interfere with the way his colleagues run their Departments. We did not realise that the Secretary of State for the Environment has no say in the way that another Department might use or misuse its building, even though it may be a listed or scheduled monument. We understand the reticence of the Secretary of State to take powers over other Secretaries of State, but we believe that Parliament should express a view on this matter.
It is strange that we, as parliamentarians, are establishing a commission which, although separate from Government—it has not been separate in the past—is related to the Department of the Environment. The Department of the Environment has no real right to express concern about the lack of repair of listed buildings which belong to another Government Department. The new clause requires that the Department of the Environment should be afforded "reasonable facilities" so that the commission can make inspections and report to the responsible Minister.
However, the new clause goes on to provide a sanction—that the reports may be published by the commission "as the Secretary of State for the Environment may allow." We still maintain the power of the Secretary of State in that respect.
I do not want it to be thought that I am in any way knocking the Property Services Agency. It does a fine job in looking after the scheduled monuments and listed buildings under its control, but it does that fine job because it is required to do so. We want to encourage Departments, other than the Department of the Environment, to be more considerate in maintaining their own buildings which may be scheduled monuments.
That is the reason for the new clause. It is an attempt to require the Government to set an example.

Mr. Macfarlane: The practical effect of the new clause would be to set up the commission as a watchdog on Government Departments to check how they maintain, repair and use the ancient monuments and historic buildings in their ownership or use.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's motives in tabling the new clause. I believe that the Secretary of State should make the fullest use of his advisers, but I do not believe that it would be right to insert the new clause in the Bill.
First, the House will recognise that, at this late stage of the Bill, the drafting of new clauses is crucial because they cannot be further amended. Unfortunately, the new clause, as drafted, does not achieve what I think the hon. Gentleman intended. For example, it requires the Secretary of State at large to afford the Secretary of State for the Environment "all reasonable facilities". The purpose of the new clause is that the commission should be given "all reasonable facilities", but it gives those facilities to the Secretary of State for the Environment. There is no obligation on the Secretary of State at large to provide facilities to the commission. Moreover, buildings owned by the Ministry of Agriculture are not covered.
Secondly, because we should be more concerned with principle than drafting, I do not believe that this is the right

way to achieve the hon. Gentleman's objective. Forcing the commission on Government Departments is not conducive to establishing the positive and constructive relationship which will be needed if the commission's advice is to have the greatest effect. We are concerned with the results rather than the means of obtaining them. I firmly believe that the right way for the commission to proceed is by way of establishing good relations so that its advice, encouragement and influence achieve the greatest effect. After all, that is precisely what we expect the commission to do in respect of all the scheduled monuments and listed buildings in non-Crown ownership. It is just as appropriate here.
In Committee I agreed to draw appropriate attention to the constructive ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) for meetings between the commission and those in Government Departments who are responsible for historic property. This is exactly the kind of positive approach that this important commission will want to adopt. I am sure that the commission will be involved in advising on all works that are proposed by Government Departments — that was the point made by my hon. Friend—and under the powers in the Bill it can achieve by agreement everything that the new clause seeks to do. That is the proper way forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree, and will not press what I believe is a defective clause.

Mr. Cormack: In my opinion, it was right to bring this matter to the Floor of the House, if only briefly, although I think that the new clause should not be pressed. My hon. Friend has obviously taken positive note of what was said in Committee. It is important that there should be proper co-ordination and that real attention should be drawn to these matters. Having been on the Historic Buildings Council for a few years now, I know, as does my hon. Friend, that some public bodies do not look after the heritage in their charge. However, I entirely accept his argument, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the new clause.

Mr. Sandelson: A similar new clause was debated in Committee. I hope that it will not be suggested by the Minister that I did not pay attention to what was said on that occasion. It became clear that the real point at issue was whether even the Secretary of State for the Environment had any right to interfere with the way in which his colleagues ran their Departments and was entitled to maintain any surveillance or inspection in deciding whether there was any misuse or failure to maintain and repair the fine buildings that often come within their departmental ambit.
As the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) rightly said—and this is the crux of the matter—this is for Parliament to decide. In my opinion, it is not proper to say that it is unconstitutional in some esoteric conceptual form for one departmental Minister to interfere in another's Department. That is not the right approach. I hope the Minister will concede that this, like other aspects of the matter, should be decided by the House of Commons. We make the rules. It is only right that the issue should be ventilated in this Chamber so that, even if the new clause is not accepted, at least all Secretaries of State will be aware that they must perhaps do better in future to ensure the care and repair of all the buildings in their guardianship.
What the new clause does not do—I hope that no one will suggest that it does—is to introduce an element of obsessive interference by the Secretary of State. All that we propose in the new clause is that the Secretary of State should be afforded "reasonable facilities" so that the new commission can make the relevant and necessary inspections and report to the responsible Minister what is required, in the view of the Secretary of the State and the commission, for any particular historic building. I commend the new clause to the Minister and to the House.

Dr. David Clark: I have listened carefully to the Minister and to those Conservative Members who have spoken, and also to the well argued case that was put by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). I am reassured by what the Minister said. I take it that he is pressing ahead with the meetings. As I understood him to say that he will continue to do that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

THE BOARD'S GENERAL FUNCTIONS

Mr. Whitehead: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 8, at end insert—
'(e) satisfy the national interest in the Victoria and Albert Museum's activities and in its provincial responsibilities'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 18, at end insert—
'(e) satisfy the national interest in the Science Museum's activities and in its provincial responsibilities.'.

Mr. Whitehead: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your second thoughts in allowing this small but important amendment to be discussed on Report. I am also grateful to the Minister for circulating to me and to other members of the Committee the reply to the remaining outstanding recommendations of the Rayner report on the two national museums. We received it just before the Easter recess. I should have liked to receive it by the end of the Committee stage, but we have at least had the opportunity to consider it.
Here we are considering the national vis-a-vis the provincial role of the two museums in question. It is truly said that there are no solutions in politics; there is simply a continuing and changing number of problems. Having pressed hard, with some success, from both sides of the Committee for a transfer of the administration of the local purchase grants of the Museums and Galleries Commission, in consultation at all times with the expert authorities at the two national museums, we feel that there is now a need to set out, more clearly than the statute has done, the national role of the museums.
The Victoria and Albert museum and the science museum must maintain a role in fostering the expertise.—indeed, the confidence—of the smaller and provincial museums. That is crucial for the survival of those smaller museums, many of which are starved of resources and expertise. I am not necessarily making a party point; it will probably always be the case that the smaller museums in the provinces will look to and rely on the kind of expert advice that is, naturally, concentrated in the great national institutions. Those have in the past taken their responsibilities seriously in the provision of such expertise and the Minister, in his response to the Rayner

recommendations, reminded them that they should be at the service not only of the public at all times—a point to which I shall come when we deal with amendment No. 4—but also of the provincial museums.
We believe that there should be a statutory obligation, and it would not cost anything; it would simply be an exhortation—a reminder underpinned in this legislation of the responsibilities of the national museums to the smaller and provincial museums. Now that the Minister has given a lead in the transfer of administration, which we welcomed and pressed for, so that it is no longer a direct role—the pastoral role in its old sense—exercised by those two museums, their indirect but nevertheless extremely important involvement should be stressed, and it must continue. Because of that, we hope that in future, as a result of a small amendment along these lines, we shall be able to indicate to future generations the importance we attach to the link between the national museums and the provincial institutions.

Mr. Channon: I do not think that any hon. Member would disagree with the sentiments contained in the final words uttered by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). I agree with him about the importance of the provincial museums and the role that the V and A and science museum have played in helping, with their expertise and in many other ways, the provincial museums. It was right for him to draw attention to the national interest as well in those two great museums. Indeed, it is common ground that they have a world-wide reputation, and I hope that the general effect of the Bill will, over the years, be to consolidate that position, improve it if anything, but certainly not make it worse.
There was much discussion in Committee about the powers of the boards and the precise duties that should be laid on the new boards of trustees. It has been pointed out that at this stage of the Bill it is extremely difficult to accept amendments unless they are exactly correctly worded. Accordingly, I must say that the first part of the amendment remains unclear. However, the hon. Gentleman pointed out that he wants the boards to stimulate interest in their respective fields and continue to exercise their role in relation to the provinces, although, as he pointed out, in relation to local purchase grants, there may be some change when we see the result of the consultations.
The boards will continue to make available to provincial museums the services that are at present available. They are certainly able to do that and the Government have every intention and hope that that should be the case. The boards already have the duty in the Bill to promote the public's enjoyment and knowledge in their respective fields. This is not confined to those who visit the museums; it relates also to the wider public, including colleagues in other museums. The way in which subsection (1) is drafted makes that clear.
Offering a range of advice and services such as loans, travelling exhibitions and lectures is not a role confined to the V and A and science museums. Our other national museums and galleries also do that. To make a specific reference in the Bill in the form of a duty to meet provincial obligations by those two institutions would contain some risk in that it could be taken to imply that other institutions which do not have such a specific obligation on them do not have that duty. If that were to


be the way in which the combined measures relating to museums were read, that would not be in the best interests of the provincial museums.
The Bill already empowers the trustees to undertake a wide range of activities of regional and provincial relevance. I therefore submit that there is no need, as a matter of statute, to include the amendment. The point is already covered in the Bill. However, I have already undertaken in Committee—and I give the undertaking again tonight — that I shall specifically draw the attention of the new trustees, when they come into operation, to our debates on these issues, and in particular to those issues where there has been complete agreement in all parts of the House, and I think that it would be fair to say that on the subject that we are now discussing there is unanimity of view. I am certain that the trustees, as they already have the power in the Bill, will wish to exercise it and, as I say, I shall make sure that their attention is drawn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Derby, North. I shall add, in talking to the trustees, that while, because of the lateness of the hour, not many hon. Members took part in the debate, I am sure that it was the unanimous view of the House. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.

Mr. Cormack: In view of my right hon. Friend's final comments, it is important to stress that the feelings to which he referred are strongly held in all parts of the House. I found his brief speech welcome and encouraging and I suggest to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) that there is no point in seeking to press the matter further. To have the Minister's assurance on the record is helpful, particularly his emphatic declaration that there is strong and unanimous feeling in the House on this subject.

Mr. Whitehead: Now that the Minister has given those assurances, which I welcome, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Whithead: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in line 20, after 'services', insert
`other than professional advice to the general public.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time amendment No. 15, in clause 9, page 6, line 30, after 'services', insert
'other than professional advice to the general public'.

Mr. Whitehead: The amendments deal with an issue related to the provision of services to the community by the national museums. The Minister, in his thoughtful reply when this matter was first raised in Committee, said he thought that our attempt then to exclude the giving of professional advice was too widely drafted and restrictive because it would mean, for example, that a museum could not charge for services to Sothebys or whatever other institution might approach it for expert consideration.
We have looked again at the matter and we accept the point that was made. However, we have redrafted the amendment—I am glad that it has been thought in order to have it discussed again—so that it now reads that the services shall be
other than professional advice to the general public".

It is an obligation on the museums which we believe they should carry through. The museums are important not merely for the service that they give to the great art houses and wealthy collectors but to individual members of the public who come into them literally off the street with small items on which they require an opinion.
I believe that the national role, in its widest and most generous sense, should embrace the responsibility of the curatorial staff of the museum to give consultations and the best advice that they can to people who come in for advice without feeling that a going rate has to be charged. We do not want a sum to be levied which might be a disincentive to members of the public without means who are seeking advice about objects which they possess or with which they have some connection.
I am extremely anxious to hear what the Minister says about an amendment which has been drafted in a way which is mindful of the reservations expressed when we discussed this matter in Committee.

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) makes a valid point. This gives us the opportunity to say how much we welcome the wise decision of the Secretary of State for Trade to refer the future of Sotheby's to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I hope that that remark will not be ruled out of order.
Even with the new and skillful drafting of the hon. Member for Derby, North, it is possible that advice which is of enormous commercial benefit could be given. There should be a facility for some small recompense to be made to the museum if, as a result of the advice, enormous benefit is derived. I associate myself with the general sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give us the assurance that we seek.

Mr. Channon: I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) has just said. I do not believe that anyone disagrees with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). In Committee there were some discussions about this point and about a recommendation in the Rayner scrutiny, which did not meet with total favour, about a related point.
I understand the view that people who come in, and have traditionally always done so, to have their objects examined, should not be charged for advice. The Government do not wish that to happen and they do not seek to make the boards charge for such advice. It would be possible for each board to decide not to charge, and I see no reason why they should make such a charge. It has never been done. We are drafting for a long time, and throughout the Bill I have tried to ensure that we draft as flexibly as possible, because we do not know what changes may arise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West is right when he says that the amendment is skilfully drafted, but it is not drafted skilfully enough. I believe that it is probably impossible to draft it skilfully enough because, even under the terms of the amendment, it would be possible for members of a specialist firm, whether they be dealers, auctioneers or whatever, to seek advice in their private capacity which they intend to use for their own or their firm's benefit later. If the hon. Gentleman's


amendment were accepted, there would be no way in which the museum could charge for that advice which might conceivably be of great commercial benefit to the individual or the firm with which he was connected. I do not believe that it is likely, but it could happen. It would be a great mistake if such a loophole were to develop.
The amendment would have another unfortunate effect. At times of economic stringency, particularly if this type of action was going on, the board might well discontinue giving advice to the public, and that would be most unfortunate.
The clause as drafted does not instruct boards to charge, and does not express the wish that they should charge. I do not believe that there is any desire that they should charge. When we are legislating for many years ahead, however, we should not preclude the possibility for all time. Although the hon. Gentleman's amendment is an improvement upon what we discussed in Committee, I do not believe that it deals with the possible loophole. I believe that it would be unwise to accept the amendment.
The amendment might lead to boards deciding to discontnue giving advice and I believe that that would be a great pity. Having thought about what the hon. Gentleman has said and the amendment that he has tabled, I believe that the powers should be given to the board, but I do not believe that there is any intention to seek or need for a change in the present practice of not charging members of the public who have an opinion expressed about their objects, as has happened for many years.

Mr. Whithead: With leave of the House, I should like to say that I accept that there might be limiting cases such as those that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) and the Minister have mentioned where a person is not a bona fide member of the public but is operating as the agent or runner for a commercial concern. We take note of what the Minister has said in his response to the amendment and what he said in the seventh paragraph of his final response to the Rayner recommendations about
giving individual members of the public the benefit of the expertise of the staff'.
The museum staff may he in a stage of uncertainty as a result of the doubts that have been cast by hon. Members on the authenticity of members of the public, but where there is an element of doubt we hope that the benefit of the doubt will be given to the person seeking advice. We do not want a means test to be levied on any member of the public seeking consultation on an object or problem. If that were so, the educational role of the museums would be gravely diminished. I hope that the Minister's assurance on amendment No. 4 will be taken in a positive way by the museum staff. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF OBJECTS

Mr. Channon: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, leave out lines 2 to 4 and insert
`and the Tate Gallery Trustees'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 18, 27, 122, 123 and 127.

Mr. Channon: There is a printing error in amendment No. 18. It should read
to end of line 7
rather than
to end of line 8".

Mr.Whitehead: In that case, the amendment should not be considered.

Mr. Channon: I undersand that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment. If the House wishes me to abandon the amendment I can do so, but that would be a mistake. It would make nonsense of the Bill.

Mr. Whitehead: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We would not normally make heavy weather of such a matter, but an important amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), who is not present at the moment, was ruled out of order earlier—even though it had the support of many hon. Members —because it contained a printing error. Less than half an hour later, the Minister is apologising to the House for considering an amendment containing a printing error. Following the precedent of the earlier decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I respectfully suggest that the amendment is not in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the amendment of the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) was not selected by Mr. Speaker, whereas amendment No. 18 was selected by Mr. Speaker but contains a printing error.

Mr. Cormack: I may be able to help the House. I have in my hand the original text of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester). I am sorry to have to say it in his absence, but his own text contains the error that appeared on the Notice Paper. The amendment must have been copied direct from his text, and it was then not selected. That was most unfortunate, and the Table Office should have detected the error. But the two amendments are in different categories.

Mr. Channon: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) and to the House. It is hard to avoid the occasional mistake in a complicated measure of this kind. We are extremely grateful to the House authorities for having managed to get so much printing done, and done correctly. In any case, I am sure that the House would not wish me to abandon the amendments as their purpose is entirely to meet points raised by the Opposition. I am happy to do as the House wishes, but I think that if the amendments are not made the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) will be in even greater danger of apoplexy than he already is. Even in the absence of the hon. Gentleman, I think that I should meet the point that he raised in Committee.
The amendments add the boards of the Tower armouries, the British museum of natural history and the British library to those set out in schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954. It named institutions other than the National and Tate galleries to which the Secretary of State could direct works of art left to the nation without specific directions. The National and Tate galleries are governed by specific provisions elsewhere in that Act, but there are good reasons why the three other institutions should also be able to benefit. I shall not go into the interesting history of why they were omitted at that time, but I am sure that the House agrees that they should now be added.
The amendments fill some of the more serious gaps involving the British museum and the British library and by adding the British museum of natural history and the armouries to the schedule enable them to receive relevant objects by transfer from other national institutions so empowered.
Under the British Library Act 1972 the British museum has power to transfer to the British library board any article in its collection. Section 9 of the British Museum Act 1963 gives the trustees of the British museum similar powers of transfer but in relation only to pictures. The British library will now be listed in the schedule to the 1954 Act. There may be a world of difference between an article and a picture. It is highly unlikely that in transferring a picture the British museum trustees would specify the provision under which they were making the transfer, so it is right to specify that pictures will be transferred under the powers set out in section 9 of the 1963 Act.
The amendments are small, but I think that they meet the wish of the hon. Member for Warley, East and all members of the Standing Committee that the provisions relating to transfers should be much easier than they were. I hope that the House will welcome the amendments. If there are questions, I have a vast brief from which I could read for at least three quarters of an hour, but I thought that the House might for once take it on trust that the amendments are good ones.

Mr. Whitehead: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome this group of amendments, subject to correction of any misprints. It might well put undue strain on the arteries of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), absent though he may be on other duties, were I in any way to dispute what the Minister has done. I am sure that the amendments will be wholly welcomed in Warley, East and all points south, north and west.

Mr. Cormack: I should perhaps add for the record that, whatever other duties the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) may undertake from time to time, at the moment he is ill and I am sure that we are all very sorry about that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

LENDING AND BORROWING OF OBJECTS

Mr. Channon: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 28, leave out 'trust or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 29, 30, 31 and 32.

Mr. Channon: The amendments cover a very small point and follow the precedents of the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954 and the Imperial War Museum Act 1955. They make a minor adjustment to the provisions governing loans by the Victoria and Albert and science museums and the tower armouries.
A distinction must be drawn between trusts and conditions in provisions affecting the boards' powers to make loans. The donor of an object subject to a condition may be entitled to the return of the object if the condition is breached. He continues to have an interest in his

donation and it is proper that he be consulted if he has restricted its loan. A donor who has given an object subject to a trust, however, has in law abandoned any personal interest in the object concerned and has no right to retrieve it if the terms of the trust are breached. It would therefore be anomalous to impose on the boards a duty to obtain the consent of the donor when by the manner in which he has donated the object he has relinquished any right to it.
I assure the House that the amendments are in no way intended to alter the basic premise underlying the provisions of the Bill which I have scrupulously tried to achieve—that trusts and conditions attaching to objects must be observed. There is nothing unprecedented in this. The two Acts that I have cited have existed for more than 20 years and so far as I know there have been no cases of difficulty.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 5, line 30, leave out 'trust or'.

No. 11, in page 5, line 34, leave out 'trust or'.— [Mr. Channon.]

Clause 12

ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF OBJECTS

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 9, line 4, leave out from 'Trustees' to end of line 8 and insert
`and the Tate Gallery Trustees'.—[Mr. Channon]

Clause 13

LENDING AND BORROWING OF OBJECTS

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 9, line 31, leave out 'trust or'.

No. 20, in page 9, line 33, leave out 'trust or'.

No. 21, in page 9, line 37, leave out 'trust or'.—[Mr. Channon.]

Clause 16

THE BOARD'S GENERAL FUNCTION

Mr. Whitehead: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 11, line 13, at end insert—
'(8) The Board may allow premises occupied or managed by them to be used by other persons (for payment or otherwise) for purposes not connected with the functions mentioned in subsection (2) if the Board are satisfied that to do so would not conflict unduly with those functions'.
This is a slightly complex matter on which I hope not to detain the House unduly. It is probably not controversial to say that the armouries are less happy with the dispositions that have been made on their behalf than all the other museums with which we have been dealing. The reasons are particular to the history of the armouries, their position within the tower of London and the fact that a number of provisions which have been made within the Bill, including some which were brought in tonight with new clauses 1, 2 and 3, have not been extended to them. The armouries feel that they are not being treated on a par with the other museums. They are, therefore, still concerned—perhaps rightly — about their status as this process of devolution continues.
The major issue is that, since the armouries are within the tower of London, and as the tower of London comes


under the Department of the Environment — indeed, a Minister in that Department will be replying to this debate —they are a collection within a museum rather than a museum in their own right, that, inevitably, will involve certain differences in how they are treated compared with the other museums. There are certain areas —two or three of which I wish to raise in the context of this amendment—where they feel that they might be better treated, although they accept that they are located and will remain within the tower of London, and indeed wish to do so.
The amendment relates to the question whether the armouries might allow their premises to be let out and used for other purposes, as has been allowed for the national museums under other clauses. There are other points that the armouries have asked us to raise, and I think that it is appropriate to put these continuing doubts and uncertainties to the Under-Secretary of State.
The armouries have thought throughout that the Government's assurances through Lord Avon in another place and in Committee through the Minister who is to reply to this debate—that it was not their intention to demote the armouries or to say that they were of less importance than any other body—sit rather ill with the different status that they have received.
I shall not weary the House with a full recital of the points that were raised in Committee. They related to the appointment of the armouries board by the Secretary of State, whereas the trustees of other institutions will be appointed by the Prime Minister; the financing of the armouries by a grant rather than a parliamentary Vote, as in the case of all the other museums; the profits which they hoped to have from any trading company which, under this Bill, they are not now to have the power to set up.
Another matter — not one on which I would necessarily agree with them—related to their ability to charge for admission to special exhibitions within the tower of London. They feel that their powers give them less freedom than is the case with the other national museums. I feel that I am duty bound to put those reservations to the House.
The amendment addresses itself to only one of these points. We feel that the armouries, given all their other worries, which have been expressed in another place and in Committee, really ought to have this modest additional power which has been extended to the other national museums. It would not in any way derogate from the particular marsupial relationship which they are bound to have with the tower of London and the Department of the Environment.
I hope that this modest amendment will commend itself to the Minister. I look forward with interest to his reply.

Mr. Macfarlane: I have to express some surprise at the comments made by the hon. Gentleman in moving this amendment, which I am sure he does for the best of motives. I am surprised that he should refer to the major worries which he thinks that the armouries have. My door is for ever open for my responsibilities throughout the land and I have not had any detailed discussions on this, nor have I had any indication that they are unhappy. We have had many discussions in recent months for a variety of reasons and I do not believe that they are as worried as has been suggested. If the hon. Gentleman has a source of

which I am not aware, I hope that he will identify it so that I may ascertain the exact nature of the concerns to which he has referred.
The amendment seeks to extend to the armouries the facility given in Committee to the Victoria and Albert museum and the science museum to continue their practice of letting parts of their premises for sponsorship or other activities unrelated to their general functions.
The difficulties seem to lie in status. It is clear that the trading functions will have to be integrated with the general tower operation. The closeness at the Department of the Environment and at the tower makes the appointment of trustees and grant-in-aid status right in their circumstances. I must remind the House that the problem for the armouries is that their collections will be housed principally in the tower of London. We are all agreed that that must continue. As the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) understands, the tower is a royal palace. It would be inappropriate for the trustees to be able to authorise events at the tower that are unrelated to their functions. This procedure might not match the status of the tower, and it is clearly a matter of status.
I cannot accept the amendment but I undertake to consider the role of the trustees, the armouries and those who run the tower. I must tell the hon. Member for Derby, North that the amendment would not fit with the rest of the Bill.

Mr. Whitehead: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the Minister's intervention. In essence, this is a probing amendment. Our attempts to advance the case for the armouries have been bedevilled by the status that they hold. The two Ministers on the Government Front Bench represent different Departments but they are working happily in tandem on the Bill, as are the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. However, assurances given by the Minister for the Arts have not in all circumstances come the way of the armouries. For example, the V and A and other museums have Vote status under the Bill, but that is not extended to the armouries. The distinction extends to the power to charge for exhibitions and the letting out of premises.
The armouries feel that they have a grievance. I shall pass on to the Minister my correspondence with the Marshal of the armouries and write a further letter asking for clarification of some of the issues that have been raised. The Minister has said that he will review the status of the armouries to ascertain whether their worries can be alleviated. I am happy to accept that assurance, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17

INITIAL VESTING IN BOARD

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 11, line 14, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3A)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 38.

Mr. Macfarlane: These amendments are designed to enable the Secretary of State to exempt individual items from the general transfer of property to the board of trustees of the armouries. They are replicas of those that


apply to the Victoria and Albert and science museums and, for example, will cover the case of an object acquired by the Secretary of State on terms that would not allow its transfer to the trustees. In such a case the Secretary of State would make an order by statutory instrument exempting the object from the provisions of clause 17(1) under which, on vesting day, all armouries property now vested in the Secretary of State will become vested instead in the board.
The amendment to clause 35 ensures that the order-making power will come into force two months after Royal Assent; this will be considerably before the board of trustees is established. This will allow the Secretary of State sufficient time to make any necessary orders, before vesting day, as is required.

Mr. Whitehead: We are not opposed to the amendment, but in view of the apparent lack of communication with the armouries, about which the Secretary of State was complaining, can he tell us whether there has been full consultation with the authorities at the armouries about the clause?

Mr. Macfarlane: There has been the fullest co-operation between my officials and the appropriate authorities on all developments and all stages of this clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 25, in page 11, line 33, at end insert—
'(3A) Subsections (1) and (3) do not apply as regards an object excepted from those provisions by an order made by the Secretary of State and coming into force before the vesting day.
(3B) The power to make an order under subsection (3A) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

No. 26, in page 11, line 35, at end insert
'(other than subsections (3A) and (3B)).'.—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Clause 18

ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF OBJECT

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 12, line 23, leave out from '1954' to end of line 25 and insert
'(ignoring the words "The Armouries"), the National Gallery Trustees and the Tate Gallery Trustees'.

No. 29, in clause 19, in page 12, line 46, leave out `trust or'.

No. 30, in page 13, line 2, leave out `trust or'.

No. 31, in page 13, line 3, leave out `trust or'.

No. 32, in page 13, line 5, leave out 'trust or' . —[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Clause 30

THE COMMISSION'S FUNCTIONS

Dr. David Clark: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 18, line 35, at end insert—
'(5A) Subject to the approval of the Secretary of State the Commission may acquire any group of listed buildings for the purpose of repairing, restoring, improving and disposing of them under a "revolving fund" set up by them for those purposes on terms agreed by the Secretary of State.'.
This amendment is essentially about revolving funds, a concept that has been at the heart of a great debate in another place and in Committee. I felt that we were making progress with the Minister on this. I remind the

House that revolving funds is a means whereby, with a limited capital sum, great improvements can be made to a building or group of buildings that are renovated and then disposed of. The scheme has been successful, especially in Fife in Scotland. The National Trust for Scotland has used the revolving funds scheme to renovate groups of houses in fishing villages in Fife. The members of the Standing Committee who have seen the work have all paid tribute to the National Trust for Scotland.
The amendment would give the commission power to use the revolving fund scheme to do similar work. The counter-argument has been that this has already happened in many cases. However, it has been possible only where a charity has been empowered and willing to do it. There may be places where there is not a charity or a housing association that can do the work. Therefore, we have put forward this amendment. I am glad to see that the Government have gone some way to meeting our objective in amendment No. 87, which will come up later. Amendment No. 33 does not detract in any way from the Government amendment. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall welcome the Government amendment, which our amendment complements.
The problem about the Government amendment is that it is restricted to conservation areas, which means that an area must be designated by a local authority. In amendment No. 33 we do not have this rather tight requirement, although in another sense we tie it down fairly tightly. Therefore, what we lose on this amendment we can pick up later on the Government amendment, which I hope the House will accept. Similarly, the imperfections of the Government amendment are put right by this amendment. We see the two amendments as complementary and in that spirit I hope the House will accept them.

9 pm

Mr. Cormack: No one who has studied the "Little Houses" scheme in Scotland does not admire it enormously. One would like to think that the commission would have the power to organise such schemes, irrespective of the precise status of the area in which the buildings are situated.
I am delighted at amendment No. 87 to which the hon. Member for South Shields, (Dr. Clark) referred. I do not think that we can or should ask for more this evening. I hope that if Parliament lasts a little longer than certain people are forecasting, it will be possible to extend it a little in another place, because the Bill must return to another place, where their Lordships have already shown that they have a comprehensive grasp of the detail and of the problems involved. We want the Bill to reach the statute book. I welcome what my hon. Friend has done and underline the great importance of the scheme for which the National Trust for Scotland has been responsible.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I apologise to the House for having to leave after this debate.
I welcome the Bill, but should like to say a few words about this amendment. I welcome amendment No. 87 and agree that the Minister has made some progress, but the measure applies purely to conservation areas. There is a fear that if we widened the area in which the commission could operate by purchasing and doing up properties and then selling them, which would apply to about 280,000 listed properties in England, that would be an expensive


way to conserve them. I have had a good brief from Save Britain's Heritage, with which I totally agree. The suggestion that the commission will come under pressure to acquire all listed buildings is ludicrous. In many parts of the country we have very good preservation societies. I have one in my constituency. I gave an example in Committee, and will not bore the House by repeating it.
I can think of a building similar to the one that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) described earlier. People did not appreciate that it had such a marvellous interior. On the Isle of Wight there is a house with a marvellous plaster ceiling, which was done purely for a visit by Queen Victoria. Her lady-in-waiting lived there, and the Queeen said that she would visit her. An Italian was brought over for the next year or two to do that fantastic ceiling. One would not know that it was there unless one went into the house.
The commission should step in when repairs are not being done and buildings are not being properly maintained. Acquisition need not be an expensive way to conserve buildings, particularly under the revolving fund system; nor, if buildings are repaired and resold, is there a question of long-term maintenance costs. I am sure that the Government will appoint people of considerable ability to the commission. Such people should have sufficient competence and managerial qualities to avoid any over-commitment to the purchase of historic buildings. I am sorry that we have not been able to go further. However, many of the points that we made in Committee have been taken up by the Government, and I am grateful for that.

Mr. Macfarlane: I am grateful for the comments made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). We have made progress, and the House acknowledges that fully. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) will forgive me if I do not follow his speculation about what may or may not happen during the summer. I give a word of caution to hon. Members that we must be careful not to have too much redrafting, whether it be here or in another place. Important aspects are enshrined in the Bill.
I understand the arguments of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). As he said, we had a detailed debate on revolving funds in Committee. I was much influenced by many of the arguments that were advanced in Committee. That is why we studied closely what was said in that debate and decided to widen the commission's powers of acquisition and disposal, and hence its powers to operate revolving funds, by giving it powers to acquire and dispose of buildings in conservation areas that it considers to be of special—I emphasise that word—architectural or historic interest.
Amendment No. 87 gives the formal details. This is a significant extension of the commission's powers. I am grateful for the constructive way in which the matter was approached in Committee. It provides most of what the amendment seeks. I do not think it right to empower the commission to acquire any listed building, but this amendment would allow only the purchase of groups of buildings. Moreover, the amendment is slightly defective in that it does not define a listed building or revolving funds.
I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields will see fit not to press the amendment in the light of the considerable step forward that the Committee made, that

we are now taking on Report and I have taken in proposing to increase the commission's powers to operate revolving funds.

Dr. David Clark': I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 18, line 36, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Clause 32

FINANCE

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 20, line 2, after 'Parliament', insert `(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 36.

Mr. Macfarlane: The amendment enables the Secretary of State to meet the commission's costs directly in the early planning phase when the commission will not be well placed to operate a financial control system. The normal method of funding will be for the Secretary of State to pay grant in aid to the commission, probably monthly, against estimates of its needs for funds. It will then be up to the commission to arrange to pay its bills, disburse grant, or whatever is necessary. There will be a short time between the first appointed day on which the commission comes into being and the second appointed day on which it will assume its full functions when alternative arrangements make more sense. During that time it will have various small expenses but not the detailed financial system set-up which would enable it to process payments with full propriety easily, as it will do later. The simplest way to avoid administrative difficulty and ensure that public money is safeguarded is for the Secretary of State to pay the commission's bills in that short time.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 20, line 3, at end insert—
`(b) defray such expenditure of the Commission as the Treasury may approve,'.—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Clause 33

CAPITAL SUMS

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 20, line 6, leave out clause 33.
This is another of the two or three not so much contentious as important aspects of the Bill. Clause 33, which would provide the commission with a capital endowment of £10 million, was added to the Bill in Committee against the Government's advice. The concept of providing a dowry in this way has great superficial attractions but it also runs directly counter to the basic concepts of parliamentary control of expenditure. This amendment therefore deletes the clause. The Government fully understand the widespread desire to ensure that the new commission gets sufficient funds to establish itself properly and to fulfil its important remit to make improvements in the presentation of monuments —including capital projects to provide or enhance visitor facilities. I not only understand but fully endorse that need.
Assurances have been given, both here and in another place, that the Government will provide the resources


necessary to set up the new commission properly, and that those setting up costs will not be allowed to diminish the resources available for programme expenditure on monuments and grants. I am happy to repeat those assurances now. The Government fully accept the need for the commission to be set up in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
I also fully accept that it is important to the success of the commission that adequate funds are provided to enable it to improve presentation and facilities at monuments, as well as preservation and grant work. However, the Government do not believe that that requires a formal and specific statutory endowment, that conflicts with the normal grant mechanism. There are many other important projects and programmes in the public sector where precisely similar arguments might apply. The required objectives are achieved by Parliament voting the necessary money in response to properly considered bids — an approach which this House has been most anxious to impress upon the Executive for many years. Giving the commission an endowment, would effectively exempt it from these well-tried and established procedures laid down by Parliament for the provision of funds. The Government see no justification for that.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund, which has been held up as an example of an endowed body, is not a genuine precedent here. The fund took over from an existing fund—the National Land Fund—and its work is different in concept from that of the new commission. The NHMF is not an executive body but a provider of capital sums and assistance to others. Hence the fund approach is appropriate and highly successful for the NHMF whereas it would not be appropriate for financing the day-to-day executive expenditure which the commission will incur.
The commission's initial task in improving the presentation of monuments to the public is to plan what it wishes to do, develop the necessary schemes and programmes, thinking through the justification for them —for we all expect public expenditure to be thoroughly planned and justified—and for the Government to seek from Parliament the necessary funds to put those plans into action. That is the right way to operate, and the Government undertake to provide, subject only to the overall requirements of public expenditure, the reasonable resources needed. There can be no guarantee that all bids will be met all the time, but the House would not wish any such guarantee to be given. However, so far as possible, the Government will provide the resources necessary for the commission to undertake the task that it has been established to perform in its programme and infrastructure. That is a firm assurance.
Given my assurances on the two issues covered by clause 33, the fact that there is nothing in the functions of the commission to warrant a capital dowry and the fact that clause 33 runs counter to the parliamentary control of expenditure, I hope that the House will agree that the clause should be removed from the Bill. I have given categorical assurances, and I hope that the House will consider what I have said.

Mr. Cormack: I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend the Minister, especially at this hour and on a Bill for which I have such wholehearted support, but we are now

debating the result of a new clause that I moved in Committee. It was accepted by the Committee but the Government now wish to delete it.
We must accept the realities of political life in the House or we would become a laughing stock outside it. It is obvious that we are debating the matter on a difficult day, but I do not complain about that. Government business managers must decide, when there is the possibility of a dissolution, that some Bills must be disposed of. We want this Bill on the statute book, so I do not complain about the fact that we are debating it on a day when most of our colleagues are involved with local government elections. However, during a recent Division, the Opposition were not even able to muster double figures. Again, I do not complain about that, but it would be futile, unsatisfactory and wrong to divide the House again this evening. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) will not divide the House, because the low figures would be misunderstood and misinterpreted by those who did not know the context of the Division.
It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Minister has moved an amendment to delete the new clause, because there is great merit in a capital sum. However, our debates have enabled him to place firmly on the record the Government's intention that the new body should be properly and adequately funded at all times. Without the debates in Committee, and without his reiteration from the Dispatch Box tonight, many people in the heritage world would have been a little worried lest the resources should not match the task. I hope and believe that they will. I accept the earnest and good intentions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister in that regard, and, although I am naturally sorry —there is a difference of opinion on this matter—that the capital sum will be deleted, I accept the position having regard to the parliamentary circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend can live up to the high standards that he has set himself by ensuring that the body is adequately funded and that the first sums voted to it meet the tasks that it must carry out.

Dr. David Clark: My first speech in today's debate followed that of the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), who talked about a learning curve. We have learnt much during our debates on the Bill, but the Government seem to have gone backwards. This is one example where they have forgotten the lesson that we taught them in Committee, and I regret that we shall not have the capital sum.
I do not follow the Minister's argument that there is no comparison with the National Heritage Memorial Fund. There is a direct comparison that will be made. I pay tribute to the National Heritage Memorial Fund, as did all hon. Members in Committee. It has done a splendid job and has caught the imagination of the public. It could do that because it had a capital sum. I am glad that because we defeated the Government in Committee we have forced them to give a categoric assurance tonight that money will be available for the commission to do its job. I welcome that.
However, we are still concerned, because we have noticed the change of status in the Countryside Commission. It has literaly stopped replying to letters. It does not reply to those who write to them. I could give the


Minister many examples. It is running out of steam and into the sand. I would hate that to happen to the new commission. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) tabled the amendment in Committee and so I bow, with regret, to his wishes. However, we shall watch the Government carefully to ensure that that categoric assurance is adhered to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36

COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 20, line 32 after `(6),' insert '17(3A) and (3B),'. — [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Channon: I beg to move amendment No. 39 in page 20, line 37, at end insert—
'(5) A provision brought into force by an order under this section shall have effect subject to any saving or transitional specified in the order.
(6) Subsection (5) applies to the provisions of Schedule 4 notwithstanding the savings there specified, but nothing shall be specified under that subsection if it would conflict with any such saving'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 85, 106 and 115.

Mr. Channon: The amendment is very small and enables a Minister of the Crown to make provision for exceptions or for specific transitional arrangements when particular clauses are brought into force by any order made under clause 36. It ensures that any such savings or transitional measures made in respect of schedule 4 must not conflict with any existing transitional measures already contained in the schedule. The first amendment is common form in many Acts. The second amendment provides helpful safeguards. There is nothing to the amendment, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37

EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 40 in page 20, line 40 at end insert
and except so far as section (Monuments etc. partly situated in England) gives power to amend any enactment which extends to Scotland.'.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Schedule 1

THE BOARDS

Mr. Channon: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 21, line 9 at beginning insert 'Subject to subparagraph (1B;),'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 42, 51, 52, 66, 68, 74 and 75.

Mr. Channon: Again, this is practically a drafting amendment. It is consequential to the amendment that I moved in Committee and empowers a Minister of the Crown to direct the boards of the Victoria and Albert and science museums to carry out certain functions on his behalf if, in his opinion, such delegation is appropriate.

The amendments are intended to ensure that if one of those bodies were to be acting under ministerial direction and the Minister enjoyed any privilege, immunity or exemption, it should also enjoy the same privileges, immunities or exemptions when acting under his instructions. It would clearly be anomalous for a body to exercise functions for and on behalf of a Minister, yet not enjoy the amenities that that Minister would enjoy if he undertook the functions himself. I hope that the House will agree that it is a common sense provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 21, line 11, leave out from 'Crown' to end of line 13 and insert—
`(1A) The trustees and their staff shall not be regarded as civil servants and the Board's property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.
(1B) In relation to any matter as respects which the Board act by virtue of a direction under section 2(4), the Board shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions as those enjoyed in relation to that matter by the Minister giving the direction.'. —[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Channon: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 21, line 28, leave out 'the crafts' and insert 'craft'.
The amendment is purely technical and amends the list of fields of knowledge and experience to which the Prime Minister should have regard when appointing trustees, in line with the definition of the board's fields of interest contained in clause 2. It is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 21, line 28, after 'management:, insert 'industrial relations'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 54, 60 and 69.

Mr. Channon: In Committee I undertook to see whether I could find an acceptable formula to meet the wishes of the Committee that experience in trade unionism, as well as other fields already listed in schedule 1 in respect of each of the four institutions named there, should be included. I was unhappy about the phrase "trade unionism" because in the context of the Bill it implied that the individual concerned should be experienced in the history and practice of trade unionism. I did not think that that was what the Committee had in mind, and thought it inappropriate in the context of the collections of the institutions covered by the amendments. However, I entirely share the view that was held throughout the Committee about the need for good industrial relations.
The institutions in the Bill have a good record in that respect and the Government had intended the word "management" to subsume a range of skills including competence in industrial relations matters. However, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and one or two of my hon. Friends made similar points. Having given it a good deal of thought, because this is a difficult one to get right, I think this is a reasonable solution.

Mr. Whitehead: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has done to meet the view of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that management and industrial relations—I accept his formula entirely—should go hand in hand here if, as we all wish, we are to have a harmonious operation of the national museums. This form of words meets the aspirations of the Opposition in seeing that this area of expertise is covered. I should like also to


Thank the Minister for his attempt in what I might call our half of the Bill to meet the points raised by the Opposition in Committee.

Mr. Cormack: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) in thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. Throughout our proceedings he has adopted a constructive and helpful approach. He has listened carefully not only in Committee but at meetings formal and informal. The Bill is all the better for that. This is an appropriate moment for that to be put on record from both sides of the House. Amendment No. 46 meets the point. Concern was expressed on both sides of the Committee that a phrase along these lines should be incorporated. I am grateful to the Minister for that and I am glad to add my tribute to that already eloquently voiced by the hon. Member for Derby, North.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 23, line 3, at end insert—
'(7) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months.
(8) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an industrial tribunal under this paragraph.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 55, 61, 70, 73 and 76.

Mr. Channon: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) for their kind remarks. I shall have a word or two to say on Third Reading.
The amendment deals with offers of employment. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill provides that offers of employment shall be made by each board and the commission to staff, the terms and conditions of which must on the whole be not less favourable than an individual's existing terms and conditions. Any dispute about whether such terms are less favourable will be referred to an industrial tribunal.
The amendments provide that, in the event of a dispute, the complaint must be referred to the tribunal within three months of the date of the offer or, in exceptional cases, within the period the tribunal considers reasonable in the circumstances. This will ensure that any disputes—we hope there will be none—are settled promptly.
The amendments give an additional safeguard, which exists elsewhere in legislation, by providing that an appeal against the decision of an industrial tribunal lies on a point of law to an employment appeal tribunal. That is the normal body for appeals against the decisions of industrial tribunals on a wide variety of employment matters, and the grounds on which appeals may be based are also those

obtaining in other legislation. I believe that this extra procedure will be helpful to the staff and the board and that they will find it reassuring.
I hope that the House will approve the amendments.

Dr. David Clark: This matter has greatly concerned the Opposition. We have had a number of meetings about it. We are satisfied that the Minister has the correct formula and are grateful to him for bringing it forward.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 23, line 20, leave out 'four', and insert
'the greater of—

(a) four, and
(b) the number equal to one third of the number of trustees at the time concerned (treating any fraction as one).'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 56 and 62.

Mr. Channon: These amendments fulfil the commitment that I gave in Committee to raise the minimum size of the quorum of the boards of trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum, the science museum and the armouries to one third of the size of the board as currently constituted. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were interested in this point. The amendment provides that where the number of trustees is not equally divisible by three the quorum shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. In legislation it is necessary to go into such detail.
A similar amendment is not required in respect of the board of the royal botanic gardens since the size of that board is already fixed at 12 and the Bill already provides that this quorum may not be less than four.
I think that this meets in full what the Committee wished to achieve. I hope the House will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 23, line 38, leave out from first 'of' to end of line 40 and insert
'the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts 1866 and 1921 which relate to appropriation accounts—'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendment No. 57.

Mr. Channon: These technical amendments are required to ensure that all those provisions concerned with appropriation accounts and the Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts 1866 and 1921 are applied to the Victoria and Albert and science museums. I almost pray that the House will not ask me too many detailed questions about the 1866 and 1921 Acts.
I am assured that these amendments are technically necessary and that the House would be wise to adopt them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 24, line 13, at end insert—
'(4A) Each report shall include a statement of the total amount received by the Board by way of admission charges in the period covered by the report, and shall include information (in such detail as the Board think fit) about rates of, exemptions from and reductions in admission charges made by the Board.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following: amendment (a) to the amendment, leave out
'(in such detail as the Board think fit)'.
Government amendment No. 58, in page 27, line 21, at end insert—


`(4A) Each report shall include a statement of the total amount received by the Board by way of admission charges in the period covered by the report, and shall include information (in such detail as the Board think fit) about rates of, exemptions from and reduction in admission charges made by the Board. '.
Amendment (a) to the amendment, leave out
'(in such detail as the Board think fit)'.
Government amendment No. 65, in page 31, line 12, at end insert—
'(5A) Each report shall include a statement of the total amount received by the Board by way of admission charges in the period covered by the report, and shall include information (in such detail as the Board think fit) about rates of, exemptions from and reduction in admission charges made by the Board. '.
Amendment (a) to the amendment, leave out
'(in such detail as the Board think fit)'.

Mr. Channon: These amendments fulfil the commitment I gave in Committee to hon. Members on both sides to ensure that the boards of the V and A and science museums would be under an obligation to report any admission charges that they imposed, including receipts from charges made at outstations and special exhibitions. They are also required to report rates of charges and exemptions and reductions.
The amount of information about these matters is, as I have drafted the amendment, for the boards' discretion. It would provide flexibility for the boards to present pertinent information that they considered helpful. There are similar provisions for the armouries. There is no point in including the royal botanic gardens, which have special arrangements for charges.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) has tabled amendments to the Government amendments. They would require the boards to make full details of their charges available. I understand his wish for full details of rates and admission charges to be shown, but I doubt whether his amendment would achieve that. The removal of the words would leave it unclear as to where the responsibility for defining the amount of detail to be specified lay. It is possible that the barest minimum would be supplied.
There are one or two other difficulties. If there are too many details it is possible that we shall be in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. We need not go as far as the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I do not feel passionately about the matter, but on balance I think that the Government amendment is best as it stands. In substance, it meets the points raised in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 51, in page 24, line 21, at beginning insert
`Subject to sub-paragraph (1B),'.
No. 52, in page 24, line 23, leave out from 'Crown' to end of line 25 and insert—
`(1A) The trustees and their staff shall not be regarded as civil servants and the Board's property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.
(1B) In relation to any matter as respects which the Board act by virtue of a direction under section 9(4), the Board shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions as those enjoyed in relation to that matter by the Minister giving the direction. '.
No. 54, in page 24, line 40, after `management,', insert `industrial relations,'.
No. 55, in page 26, line 11, at end insert—
'(7) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal

considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months.
(8) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an industrial tribunal under this paragraph.'.
No. 56, in page 26, line 28, leave out 'four' and insert `the greater of—

(a) four, and
(b) the number equal to one third of the number of trustees at the time concerned (treating any fraction as one).'

No. 57, in page 27, line 2, leave out from first `of' to end of line 4 and insert
'the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts 1866 and 1921 which relate to appropriation accounts—'.
No. 58, in page 27, line 21, at end insert—
`(4A) Each report shall include a statement of the total amount received by the Board by way of admission charges in the period covered by the report, and shall include information (in such detail as the Board think fit) about rates of, exemptions from and reductions in admission charges made by the Board.'.
No. 60, in page 28, line 6, after `management:, insert `industrial relations,'.
No. 61, in page 29, line 27, at end insert—
'(7) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months.
(8) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an industrial tribunal under this paragraph.'.
No. 62, in page 29, line 44, leave out 'three'. and insert `the greater of—

(a) three, and
(b) the number equal to one third of the number of trustees at the time concerned (treating any fraction as one).'—[Mr. Channon.]

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg io move amendment No. 63, in page 30, line 30, leave out '30 November' and insert `31 August'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 64, 71, 72, 78, 79. 80, 81 and 82.

Mr. Macfarlane: These amendments are all concerned with auditing arrangements for the armouries, Kew and the commission. They have three objectives. First, amendments Nos. 63 and 71 recognise the general desire of Parliament to speed up the production of accounts and are in line with the timetable now being applied to Government Departments.
Amendments Nos. 64, 72 and 81 provide that the first financial year for the armouries, the royal botanic gardens, Kew, and the commission are to be longer than 12 months. The idea quite simply is to avoid the time, trouble and expense of requiring the bodies to produce full audited accounts—and in the case of the commission a report—covering the short setting-up period. This is a sensible amendment which I commend to the House.
Thirdly, amendments Nos. 78, 79, 80 and 82 enable the Secretary of State to give directions about the date by which the commission's statement of accounts is to be


prepared and ensure that the statement of accounts included in the annual report will be the audited statement of accounts.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 30, line 39, after second 'with', insert 'the second'.

No. 65, in page 31, line 12, at end insert—
'(5A) Each report shall include a statement of the total amount received by the Board by way of admission charges in the period covered by the report, and shall include information (in such detail as the Board think fit) about rates of, exemptions from and reductions in admission charges made by the Board.'.
No. 66, in page 31, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 33 and insert—
'Subject to sub-paragraph (2A), the Board shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.
(2) The trustees and their staff shall not be regarded as civil servants and the Board's property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.
(2A) In relation to any matter as respects which the Board act by virtue of a direction under section 22(5), the Board shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions as those enjoyed in relation to that matter by the Minister giving the direction.'.

No. 68, in page 31, line 45, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'the following provisions'.

No. 69, in page 32, line 3, after 'management,', insert 'industrial relations,'.

No. 70, in page 33, line 23, at end insert—
'(7) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of months.
(8) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an industrial tribunal under this paragraph.'.

No. 71, in page 34, line 29, leave out '30 November' and insert '31 August'.

No. 72, in page 34, line 38, after second 'with', insert `the second'.

Schedule 2

ARMED FORCES MUSEUMS

Amendment made: No. 73, in page 36, line 12, at end insert—
'(7) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of th perid of 3 months.
(8) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an industrial tribunal under this paragraph.'.—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Schedule 3

THE COMMISSION

Amendment made: No. 74, in page 36, line 25, at beginning insert—
'Subject to sub-paragraph (1B),'.

No. 75, in page 36, line 27, leave out from 'Crown' to end of line 30 and insert—
'(1A) The members of the Commission and of their staff shall not be regarded as civil servants and the Commission's property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.
(1B) In relation to any matter as respects which the Commission act by virtue of a direction under section 31(2), the Commission shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions as those enjoyed in relation to that matter by the Secretary of State for the Environment.'.
No. 76, in page 38, line 41, at end insert—
'(7) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months.
(8) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an industrial tribunal under this paragraph.'.—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 39, line 28, leave out from 'constitute' to second `of in line 30 and insert
'at least one committee to advise them on ancient monuments and at least one to advise them on historic buildings, and may constitute other committees to advise them on those or other aspects'.
Those who took part in the debate in Committee will recall that this amendment tidies up the provision inserted, against my advice, in Committee requiring the commission to set up advisory committees. As promised, I have not sought to reverse that decision, but I believe that my amendment is needed to make the provision unambiguous and one that achieves the aims that I think the sponsors of the provision intended. It will require the commission to set up at least one committee on historic buildings and at least one on ancient monuments. Of course, it may set up more than that if it wants to do so, and I believe that that is what members of the Committee would want — for example, to have more specialist committees.
I think that all hon. Members will welcome this amendment, which I think is an improvement on what was tabled in Committee, and I hope that they will give it their support.

Dr. David Clark: May I say briefly how grateful I am to the Minister for not having sought to reverse the defeat in Committee. I concede that we may not have drafted the matter perfectly in Committee and that the Minister's drafting is better. However, I am glad that the Minister accepts our point of principle.

Mr. Cormack: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said. This is a repeat of the exercise that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and I had with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts a few moments ago.
Again, we are grateful to the Minister for having listened carefully to what we said and for tabling an amendment which entirely meets the point that was made very forcefully by all sides of the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 78, in page 40, line 27, after `shall', insert—
'(a) be prepared within such period as the Secretary of State may direct; and (b)'.

No. 79, in page 40, line 32, after 'accounts', insert
`(including any statement prepared under this paragraph)'.

No. 80, in page 40, line 33, leave out from 'State' to end of line 35.

No. 81, in page 41, line 3, after 'with', insert 'the second'.

No. 82, in page 41, line 11, after 'prepared', insert 'and audited'.—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Schedule 4

THE COMMISSION: AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 83, in page 43, line 36, leave out 'situated in Scotland or Wales' and insert 'not situated in England'.

No. 84, in page 43, line 38, leave out 'situated in Scotland or Wales' and insert `not situated in England'.

No. 85, in page 43, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (2).—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 44, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 and insert—
'any building which is situated in England and in an area designated as a conservation area under section 277 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and which appears to the Commission to be of special historic or achitectural interest;
(c) any land which is situated in England and which comprises, or is contiguous or adjacent to, any building mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection;
(d) any garden or other land which is situated in England and which appears to the Commission to be of outstanding historic interest but which is not contiguous or adjacent to a building which appears to the Commission to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can take amendment No. 95.

Mr. Macfarlane: These amendments all relate to gardens. We have brought them forward to fulfil our commitment to extend the commission's role in this area. The first empowers it to acquire or accept any garden or other land which is of outstanding historic interest but is not adjoining an outstanding historic building. This brings its acquisition powers into line with its grant-making powers. In addition, the first part of the amendment empowers the commission to acquire, with the Secretary of State's consent, any building in a conservation area which appears to it to be of special historic or architectural interest. As I mentioned in discussion on an early amendment about the revolving fund concept, we have decided to give the commission this additional power in response to the views, clearly expressed in Committee, that the commission should have a wider role to play in operating a "revolving fund" for the renovation and resale of historic buildings. This will enable it to undertake such work not only for outstanding buildings but also for special buildings in conservation areas, about which hon.

Members seemed particularly concerned. I believe that the House will welcome this amendment. The second part ensures that the commission can acquire land adjoining such buildings in a conservation area. That, too, was a matter of concern to members of the Committee.
This may be an appropriate place for me to say a few words about a suggestion put forward in Committee for a revised definition of "land adjoining" an historic building. This would apply to the commission's grant and acquisition powers. The definition is that in the Finance Act 1976 and refers to land which
adjoins
a building
and is essential for the protection of its character and amenities".
First, I have to say that I do not see the necessity of bringing the two definitions "into line" just for the sake of it. It is more important to get the wording which achieves our intended objective. Secondly, while I do not think that there is any great difference between the 1953 Act wording and the 1976 Act wording, I think that the 1953 Act version is, if anything, capable of a slightly wider interpretation. This is chiefly because there is no test of the "essential" nature of the land. Providing that it adjoins a building, the commission can at present acquire land whether it is essential or not. It is entirely up to the commission. I believe that we should leave the definition as it is, to give it the greatest possible flexibility. From recollection of our deliberations upstairs, that was one of the objectives of most of the members of the Committee.
Following on from the acquisition powers is the power contained in amendment No. 95 to accept endowments for any gardens or other land which it acquires. A related matter which I agreed in Committee to reconsider, and which I can perhaps best deal with here, is the question of endowments for monuments which are not buildings. As I said I would do in Commitee, I have checked on my statement of what would qualify as a building and I can confirm precisely what I said then. The word "building" covers any structure or erection, and that would include virtually everything which it is appropriate to cover. Certainly it would include Stonehenge.
That means that there is very little which would not be covered, except perhaps dykes and cave dwellings. But if somebody were to want to endow such monuments it would be possible for him to covenant or bequeath money as against property to the commission on condition that it be used for the upkeep of a specified monument. I suggest that the simplest course would be to leave it at that.

Dr. David Clark: We are pleased with this series of amendments, even if it does not go far enough; we are thankful for small mercies. What concerns us most about amendment No. 87 is that it is restricted to conservation areas. That means that whereas the great problem with art is that in this case it is restricted to areas where there are local planning authorities which are progressive—which is where often the problem is the least — the major problems occur in areas where there are not the same progressive planning authorities. But as it is now past 9 o'clock, perhaps that situation has been changed by today's balloting.
I was pleased to hear the Minister's comments about the application of the amendments in that they will apply to nearly everything, including Stonehenge. However, would they cover barrows and underground caves—for example, the Ridgeway and ancient tracks? Even at this


late stage we should make sure that we are covering those. If the Minister does not have the answer now, perhaps he will look into it. Otherwise I am pleased to welcome the amendments.

Sir Albert Costain: As a keen gardener, I am interested in the clause and should like clarification of amendment No. 95. The clause says that the commission may accept a gift and refers to a charitable trust. A number of people may be considering making such a gift. If it is not a charitable trust, how will that affect the transfer of funds at cost rather than at valuation? That could, it seems, affect the income of the organisation if it must transfer at valuation rather than at acquirement cost.

Mr. Cormack: It is a pleasure to have the Secretary of State for Defence with us because he is the architect of this extremely important Bill. I hope that he will stay and hear the plaudits on Third Reading. If not, at least he will know that hon. Members are pleased that he has dropped in on our proceedings, and we are grateful to him for what he has instituted.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made a valid point when he referred to conservation areas. I should like to think that one of the first things the new commission will do, in consultation with the Secretary of State, will be to circulate all local authorities asking whether they are entirely satisfied that they have designated the right number of conservation areas. As we know, there are local authorities and local authorities. We had this debate with some hilarity but with an underlying seriousness in Committee. We do not want to repeat it now, but it is important that conservation areas should be designated throughout the country, and I sincerely hope that the new commission will make one of its earliest tasks the urging of local authorities to designate what should be designated.

Mr. Macfarlane: I acknowledge the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) and Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). I draw the attention of the hon. Member for South Shields to the important definition of "buildings". He referred to barrows and caves. Amendment No. 95 means that there is little that would not be covered except perhaps dykes and cave dwellings. That is something at which the commission would need to look.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe raised a number of points about convenanting and endowments that I shall study and upon which I shall give him a detailed answer. It will be perfectly possible for someone to covenant and bequeath money, as against property, to the commission on the clear condition that it will be used for the upkeep of a specified monument. That would be recorded and acknowledged by the bequeather.
I am grateful for the welcome of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West and I am certain that the important points that he made will be noted by the commission, because they seem to be wholly sensible.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 44, line 22, leave out
`Subject to subsection (4) of this section,'.

The amendment deletes a reference, which is no longer relevant, to the commission obtaining the Secretary of State's consent to the acquisition or acceptance of objects. The requirement was removed from section 5A(4). It deletes the unwanted references in section 5A(2) which were overlooked.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 91, in page 45, line 42, leave out
`situated in Scotland or Wales'
and insert
`not situated in England'.
No. 95, in page 47, line 10, at end insert—

Endowments of gardens
`8AA — (1) Where any instrument coming into operation after the establishment of the Commission contains a provision purporting to be a gift of property to the Commission upon trust to use the income thereof (either for a limited time or in perpetuity) for or towards the upkeep of a garden or other land acquired or accepted by the Commission under section 5A(1)(d) of this Act, or a garden or other land which the Commission propose so to acquire or accept, or for or towards the upkeep of any such garden or other land together with other property situated in England, the Commission may accept the gift, and if they do so, and the provision does not constitute a charitable trust, the following provisions of this section shall have effect.
(2) The validity of the gift and of the trust to use the income as aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as "the endowment trust") shall be deemed not to be, or ever to have been, affected by any rule of law or equity which would not have affected their validity if the trust had been charitable.
(3) In relation to the property (of whatsoever nature) comprised in the gift and any property for the time being representing that property (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the trust fund") the Commission shall during the continuance of the endowment trust have the like powers of management, disposition and investment as, in the case of land held on trust for sale, are conferred by law on the trustees for sale in relation to the land and to the proceeds of sale thereof; but this subsection shall have effect without prejudice to any additional or larger powers conferred on the Commission by the trust instrument.
(4) If while the endowment trust continues an event happens such that immediately thereafter the Commission are not entitled to any interest in the garden or other land to which the trust relates, and apart from this subsection the endowment trust would not then be determined or be deemed to have failed, then on the happening of that event the endowment trust shall cease by virtue of this subsection and the trust fund shall devolve accordingly as on a failure of the trust.
(5) If the trust instrument contains a provision whereby on the failure or determination of the endowment trust the trust fund purports to be given, or to be directed to be held, on charitable trusts, the validity of that gift or direction shall be deemed not to be, or ever to have been, affected by any rule of law or equity relating to perpetuities. '.—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 97, in page 47, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 42.
This was another subject of detailed discussion, revealing deeply held views by members on both sides of the Committee. The amendment will delete the provision that was inserted in the Bill in Committee against my advice. It deals with the creation of a register of gardens in Scotland and Wales. I put my views on the record clearly on that occasion and they hold good today.
There are two reasons for the amendment. First, as has been stated clearly on a number of occasions, the Bill in so far as it relates to the commission, has always been intended to deal with England only. It reflects the decisions of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales that they did not wish to follow England in setting up an independent agency. Secondly,


the present provision is not appropriate as it gives executive functions to the purely advisory Historic Buildings Councils.
The Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales already have powers to produce a register of gardens and to publish the results if they wish. No explicit powers are needed in the Bill for that and I am certain that my right hon. Friends will take account of the views expressed about this by the House.

Dr. David Clark: This is another disappointment. As the Minister acknowledges, we argued long and well about it in committee. Views were deeply held on both sides. It was generally felt that it was not right for us to take extra powers for England that we were not going to grant to our fellow countrymen in Wales and Scotland. I do not understand why the Government have taken such an intransigent stance on this point. Many hon. Members have spoken, and I know that many hon. Members are aware, of the attractiveness of many of the gardens in Scotland and Wales, and of the wish of various councils to compile a register. It is most unfortunate that the Government have decided to reverse the Committee's decision.
We have the support of the National Trust of both countries for this provision. I have letters from Lord Wemyss and Lord Gibson which we had hoped would persuade the Government to give the National Trust for Scotland the same powers as the National Trust in England will have under the Bill.
We feel that it is most regrettable and wrong that the Government have decided to penalise the Scots, the Scottish National Trust, the Welsh, and the National Trust in its operations in Wales. We regret very much the Government's refusal to accept our proposals that would have allowed Scotland to share equally the benefits of the legislation with England.

Mr. Cormack: This is an unfortunate deletion. It illustrates the absolute necessity of trying to set up common systems in the three constituent countries of the United Kingdom. I hope that early efforts will be made to bring the organisations together. I should like to put it on record that the National Trust has strong supporters on both sides of the House. We hope that there will be an early conference of all those concerned to try to bring about what the National Trust so understandably and reasonably wants.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 98, in page 49, line 3, after `section', insert
'in relation to a building or part situated in England'.

No. 99, in page 49, line 13, leave out
'without the consent of the Secretary of State'
and insert
`unless—

(a) the land is situated in England, and
(b) the Secretary of State has consented.'. — [Mr. Macfarlane.]

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 51, line 9, at end insert—
'(2B) Where the Secretary of State, after consulting with the Commission, notifies a local, county or district planning authority in writing that subsection (2A) of this section shall not affect the authority as regards any notice relating to any kind of application specified in the notification, then that subsection shall not affect the authority as regards any such notice.

(2C) The Secretary of State shall send to the Commission a copy of any notification made under subsection (2B) of this section.'.
There was considerable discussion in Committee about the best way of keeping the commission informed about the planning applications that local planning authorities are required to publicise under section 28 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. As the Bill stands, all the applications to which the section applies — that is, applications which, in the authority's opinion, will affect the character or appearance of a conservation area or the setting of a listed building—must be notified to the Commission.
We shall in due course discuss the question of which papers the Commission should receive about each application, but, regardless of the outcome of that discussion, the amendment offers the Secretary of State an additional power to restrict the flow of papers to the commission. He can direct a local planning authority that a notification requirement does not apply to any specified kind of application. This could, for example, be defined by the grade of listed building whose setting the development would affect. That will mean that where the commission consistently finds that certain groups of applications present no problems, and where it feels that it no longer needs to be notified about them, the Secretary of State may direct the planning authority to that effect.

Dr. David Clark: I am glad that the Minister has accepted that point, for which we argued strongly in Committee, the amendment makes sense. It will modulate the flow. We are slightly worried about whether the commission will have sufficient flexibility. We hope that the commission will take note of the attitude of the Government, and we therefore accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to amendment No. 101. Mr. Macfarlane.

Mr. Macfarlane: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Amendment No. 101 is in the name of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack).

Mr. Cormack: I beg to move amendment No. 101, in page 51, line 9, at end inseet—
(2B) When a local planning authority notifies the Commission of an application for planning consent under this section it shall also concurrently direct the applicant forthwith to send a copy of the application to the Commission, together with copies of all plans and documents that were submitted with it."'
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in no sense wish to criticise my hon. Friend's alacrity in leaping to the Dispatch Box. This is an admirable Bill—even though it may have one or two minor blemishes—and we are all eager to see it on the Statute Book. I await with interest the Minister's reply. The amendment 'seeks to ensure that proper information is given, and that the commission has a proper role to play. Unless there is full consultation and total awareness, there will be a repetition of the unfortunate case to which I referred in one of my first brief comments today.

Mr. Macfarlane: I had only your interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of my hon. Friend at heart when I rose earlier. It seems to be a day of misprints, including the classification of this as a Government amendment on the paper provided by the Speaker's Office.
We had an important and detailed discussion in Committee and I undertook to examine the argument again to see whether I could find a better solution than we now have. I have fulfilled the first part of that undertaking by considering the whole issue again very carefully. Taking everything into account, however, I can find no better solution than that which we now have. I am the first to admit that the arrangements under the Bill are not perfect. If there were a perfect solution, I think that between the lot of us, in Committee and elsewhere, we should have found it by now.
Let us consider the disadvantages of the Government's proposal as compared with those of the amendment. The Government's procedure provides the commission with initial information on which to make an initial judgment as to whether it wishes to involve itself. I think that there is wide agreement that in the vast majority of cases if the commission decides that it wants the detailed information it will be able to obtain it through the local authorities. I recognise, however, that our procedure does not cover with certainty the possibility that a non-heritage-minded local authority may make difficulties or that problems may arise with regard to plan copyright. It is fair to say, however, that in each of these cases, although our solution is not perfect, it will always be open to the commission to send somebody to inspect the detailed, plans at the town hall, if an expert member of the commission staff is not already familiar through local knowledge with the details of the proposal.
The proposal in the amendment and the possible variants would give the commission all the details in every case. That has the advantage of ensuring that the commission has full information, but the task of sifting and evaluating all the plans would impose heavy costs on the commission. Many applicants would also be put to unnecessary expense when the details that they had to provide would be neither used nor needed by a body that was in any case created solely as an advisory organisation and not with executive locus in the matter. The amendment would also add to the work load of local authorities in obtaining and forwarding material. I and my Department care deeply about that as a matter of policy because we are anxious to keep local government as lean and efficient as possible, and central Government must play its part in exercising self-discipline in imposing extra burdens, however small they may seem individually.
At the end of the day, the disadvantages as well as the advantages of the two approaches must be balanced. As I said in Committee, I am second to none among those who support the new commission, which will be of supreme importance. Nevertheless, I have had to conclude that an advisory role does not warrant the blanket bureaucratic approach of the amendment or its possible variants. I believe that our proposal can be made to work quite simply in the vast majority of cases and through a personal visit in the minority of problem cases.
It will be open to the commission to come back to the Government on this if they find that the arrangements are not working satisfactorily in practice. Unless and until that happens, I believe that we have found the best available solution in all the circumstances. I hope that the House will agree and that my hon. Friend will, on reflection, seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Cormack: I was greatly reassured by my hon. Friend's final observation that if the commission felt that the powers were not adequate the matter could be reconsidered. I cite just one analogy. Long ago, shortly after I became a Member of Parliament, some of us proposed an amendment to a local government Bill in which we sought to ensure that all planning applications within an area were referred to the local parish councils —not so that the parish councils should have any power of veto but to ensure that they were informed and consulted. There is a parallel her. I accept my hon. Friend's comments about the paperwork, excessive bureaucracy and so on, and I understand his reluctance to accept the amendment, although I regret it. Nevertheless, he should bear in mind the genuine analogy of the parish council case and accept that the whole subject must be properly—not tritely, as is sometimes the case—kept under constant review. If the commission subsequently makes out a case to the Minister that it needs these extra facilities and powers I hope that they will be readily granted.
I take it from the nods of assent and from what he said at the Dispatch Box just before he sat down that my hon. Friend is in agreement with me on that general principle. As long as I have not misunderstood those nods of assent, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 103, in page 51, line 35, leave out paragraph 17.
As hon. Members will have realised, this amendment seeks to delete from schedule 4 a paragraph, inserted against Government advice in Committee, which would empower the commission to serve building preservation notices. Between the Committee stage and today, I have of course considered carefully against the arguments advanced in favour of this provision to see if they could persuade me to leave it in, but I have to say that I am no more convinced now than I was then that it would be right to give the commission this power.
I still believe that it is not appropriate for an appointed body like the commission to exercise powers which impose restrictions, even time-limited restrictions, on the rights of private property owners. Such funcions are properly exercised only by democratically elected representatives. I have considered the argument that this is not really important because the Secretary of State, who is, of course, an elected representative, can overrule a building preservation notice issued by the commission. If he says that he has decided definitely not to list the building in question, the building preservation notice lapses at once. In theory he could do this the day after the notice had been served, if he disagreed with it.
It is wrong to say that, because there is this safeguard, this possibility of being overruled,it does not matter who has the power. If we followed that argument too far, we would end up saying that any body or person could have the power, as long as there was always the Secretary of State behind them as a longstop to step in when needed. This surely cannot be right. I believe that we have to approach the question from the other side and ask if it is proper for an appointed body to have powers over private property notwithstanding the existence of a safety net. I believe tha it is not proper. Nor do I think that it is proper in the context of the relationships we want to see between


the commission and local authorities, and none of us wants positively to encourage the Secretary of State to intervene in the commission's affairs.
At present local authorities are the only bodies that can serve building preservation notices. They are, therefore, fully aware that they are the only ones which can act swiftly in this way to prevent the imminent loss of historic buildings and to buy time for further consideration. In giving the commission these powers as well, we would be allowing it to step in and in effect to overrule a local authority by serving a notice where the authority had decided not to. There will always be occasions when opinions differ over whether a notice should be served, but we cannot get round this simply by giving out these powers to more and more people. Someone has to make the decision and take the final responsibility, and the Government firmly believe that in this case it should, as now, be the local authority—the elected body.
The commission will still be able to make urgent representations to the local authority to serve a building preservation notice, or to the Secretary of State to use his spot-listing powers. Given the commission's relationship with the Secretary of State, I believe that the latter avenue could often be the most effective and important, but both offer every opportunity for the commission to use its influence. I am clear that we should leave it at that.

Dr. David Clark: This is a complicated but very important matter which raises important points of principle, as the Minister has already acknowledged. He makes the point, quite fairly, that in his view it would not be proper—I think he said—for these rights to be held by a nominated body over private property. I fully see the argument which he so lucidly advanced.
As I listened to what the Minister was saying, my mind cast back about four hours to when we were discussing new clause 4, in which we were giving the commission the power to enter upon private property. I supported the Government in giving this power and I made the point then that heritage is no one's private property; it is the property of civilisation, of the nation. It seems to me that the argument which I advanced then, and which the Minister acknowledged and agreed with, applies equally in this case. The Committee having considered it right that the commission should have powers in relation to building preservation orders, it is regrettable that the Minister feels that he is unable to accept that decision. I do not understnd the logic of his argument. It is no answer for the Minister to say that the Secretary of State could overrule the commission's decision. We know that that could happen but we could provide some protection for property rights. Circular 23/77—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the National Heritage Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Dr. Clark: As I was saying, circular 23/77 makes it clear that it is always possible, if a building preservation order has been served wrongly, for an individual to obtain compensation. The private individual is covered, and we have already accepted the precedent that the commission,

as an appointed body, has rights over private property. I regret the fact that the Minister is seeking to withdraw the combined wisdom of the Committee.

Mr. Cormack: I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). The great feature of a Standing Committee is that it consists of a group of Members who try carefully to study a subject in depth. When a Committee makes an amendment, it is no light thing to overturn it. I know that my hon. Friend thinks that he has not made his decision lightly, but this matter will probably have to be considered again.
If, when the commission's activities are reviewed and its experience is analysed after the first year, it tells my hon. Friend that in certain respects it needs extra facilities and extra powers to those contained in new clause 4, I hope that he will listen sympathetically. I shall be grateful for that assurance.
The last thing that we should do is to divide the House. The Bill must not end on any note of acrimony. I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge the force of my argument.

Mr. Macfarlane: I acknowledge the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West. Any legislation passed by this place has constantly to be reviewed. This is a difficult area which we discussed fully in Committee. The issue takes us back to the role of the local authority — the democratically elected representatives—and the role of the Secretary of State. It is an area in which there are difficult problems. I hope that the House will acknowledge the assurance that I have given.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 52, line 39, at end insert—
'21A. After section 277(6) of the 1971 Act (designation of conservation areas) there shall be inserted—
(6A) Where a designation under subsection (1) or (2) above, or a variation or cancellation of it, affects an area in England, subsection (6) above shall have effect as if the first reference to the Secretary of State were a reference to him and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England; and where a designation under subsection (4) above, or a variation or cancellation of it, affects an area in England, subsection (6) above shall have effect as if the second reference to a local planning authority were a reference to the authority and the Commission."'
The amendment seeks to ensure that the commission will be kept fully informed of the designation of conservation areas in England. It requires local planning authorities and the Secretary of State, who also has designation powers, to notify it of any designation, variation or cancellation. That is clearly sensible.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 57, line 21, after 'monument', insert 'have been or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 120.

Mr. Macfarlane: The two amendments add to the commission's powers of entry. The first amendment seeks an extension to the commission's existing powers that will enable it to enter land to ascertain whether unauthorised works have taken place or are taking place. The amendment closes an obvious loophole in the present provisions.
Amendment No. 120 gives the commission the same powers as that of the Secretary of State. It enables the


commission, where it has exercised its right to enter land to observe works covered by a scheduled monument consent, to take custody of anything of archaeological or historical interest which is discovered.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in page 60, line 18, leave out 'obtain the consent of and insert 'consult with'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 110 and 111.

Mr. Macfarlane: All these amendments deal with the question when and whether the commission should have to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to its activities. Our guiding principle has been to give the commission as much freedom and independence as possible, consonant with the need for the Government to be involved in decisions that may have substantial implications for the Exchequer. A detailed check through schedule 4 has identified two places where we think it should not be necessary for it to get consent, and these amendments therefore delete those requirements.
The first instance is when the commission wants to terminate a guardianship agreement, and thus divest itself of any responsibility for a monument. It may do this only in very narrowly defined circumstances. It seems appropriate therefore to make it subject to consultation, which will also bring this provision into line with the commission's general disposal powers which require consultation rather than consent.
The other two amendments are concerned with transfers of guardianship monuments. Again, when the commission is transferring a monument to a local authority, consultation seems most appropriate. Where, however, the transfer is to the commission, substantial resource implications may be involved and it is therefore right to retain the requirement to seek the Secretary of State's consent.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 61, line 19, at end insert—
'(4) At the end of the section there shall be inserted—
(9) References to an ancient monument in subsection (1A) above, and in subsection (3) above so far as it applies for the purposes of subsection (1A), shall be construed as if the reference in section 61(12)(b) of this Act to the Secretary of State were to the Commission."'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 112, 113 and 116.

Mr. Macfarlane: These amendments are intended to allow the commission to decide whether something is an "ancient monument" without having to consult the Secretary of State. Certain of its powers can be exercised only in relation to ancient monuments. At present ancient monuments are defined as scheduled monuments or any other monuments which in the Secretary of State's opinion are of public interest. Under these amendments, the commission, which will after all be the expert, will be able, where appropriate, to decide for itself if a monument is of public interest and thus ancient.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 109, in page 62, line 33, leave out 'situated outside' and insert 'not situated in'.

No. 110, in page 62, line 39, leave out 'or (g) above without the consent of and insert 'above without consulting'.

No. 111, in page 62, line 40, and end insert—
'(6) The Commission may not enter into an agreement mentioned in subsection (1)(g) above without the consent of the Secretary of State.'.

No. 112, in page 63, line 4, at end insert—
'(3B) Reference to an ancient monument in subsections (1) and (2) above, as amended by subsection (3A) above, shall be construed as if the reference in section 61(12)(b) of this Act to the Secretary of State were to the Commission.'.

No. 113, in page 63, line 15, at end insert—
'(3B) References to an ancient monument in subsections (1) and (2) above, as amended by subsection (3A) above, shall be construed as if the reference in section 61(12)(b) of this Act to the Secretary of State were to the Commission.'. —[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 114, in page 65, line 4, at end insert
'(if the investigating authority is not the Commission).
(11) On varying or revoking a direction given under subsection (8) above in relation to a site situated in England the Secretary of State shall notify the Commission (giving particulars of the effect of any variation) if the investigating authority is not the Commission.'.
There is nothing ancient and modern about this amendment. It tidies up the arrangements for notifying the commission about directions made by the Secretary of State relating to the powers of investigating authorities for areas of archaeological importance.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 115, in page 65, line 4, at end insert—
'(5) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2) affects the right of an investigating authority to excavate a site in respect of which an operations notice was served before the appointed day.'.

No. 116, in page 65, line 43, at end insert
; and the reference to an ancient monument in this subsection shall be construed as if the reference in section 61(12)(b) of this Act to the Secretary of State were to the Commission.'.

No. 117, in page 66, line 11, leave out 'if it is situated elsewhere' and insert 'in any other case'. —[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 118, in page 66, line 15, at end insert—
'62A.—(1) Section 49 of the 1979 Act (grants by Secretary of State to Architectural Heritage Fund) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for the words from "institution" to the end there shall be substituted "Architectural Heritage Fund".
(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
(1A) The Commission may make grants to the Architectural Heritage Fund for the purpose of enabling it to perform its functions in, or in relation to, England.". (4) In subsection (2) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or the Commission (as the case may be)".
(5) At the end of the section there shall be inserted—
(3) In this section 'the Architectural Heritage Fund' means the institution registered under that name under the Charities Act 1960.".'.
This amendment, which I promised in Committee, enables the commission as well as the Secretary of State to make grants to the architectural heritage fund in respect of its functions in England. I believe that the House will welcome the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 120, in page 66, line 19, at end insert—
'63A. In section 54(1)(b) of the 1979 Act (treatment and preservation of finds) after "(4)(b)" there shall be inserted "or 6A(2)(a)".'.—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, amendment No. 121, in page 67, line 31, at end insert—

'Pastoral Measure 1983 (No. 1)
67A. — (1) Section 66 of the Pastoral Measure 1983 (transfer of redundant churches) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
(c) where a redundant building or any part thereof is situated in England and is vested in the diocesan board of finance, whether in pursuance of a pastoral scheme or a redundancy scheme or pending the making of a redundancy scheme, the board may, with the approval of the bishop and the Commissioners, enter into and carry out an agreement with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England for the acquisition and preservation by the Commission of the building or part with or without other land so situated and so vested in the board;
(d) where a redundant building or any part thereof is situated in England and is vested in the Redundant Churches Fund in pursuance of a redundancy scheme or a pastoral scheme to which section 47 applies, the Fund may enter into and carry out an agreement with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England for the acquisition and preservation by the Commission of the building or part with or without other land so situated and so vested;".
and for "the next two following subsections" there shall be substituted "subsections (2) and (3)".
(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
(1A) The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England shall not enter into an agreement under subsection (1) (c) or (d) without the consent of the Secretary of State.".
(4) In subsection (2)(a) after "the Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or (as the case may be) the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England", after "him" there shall be inserted "or them" and after "his" there shall be inserted "or their", and in subsection (2)(c) after "the Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or (as the case may be) the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England".
(5) In subsection (3) after "the Secretary of State" (in the first place) there shall be inserted "or (as the case may be) the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England" and after "the Secretary of State" (in the second and third places) there shall be inserted "or the Commission".
(6) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
(3A) Before giving his consent under subsection (3) in relation to a building or part situated in England, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England.".
(7) In subsection (4) after "the Secretary of State" (in the first place) there shall be inserted "or the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England" and after "the Secretary of State" (in the second and third places) there shall be inserted "or the Commission (as the case may be)".
(8) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
(4A) The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England shall not enter into an agreement under subsection (4) unless—

(a) the land is situated in England, and
(b) the Secretary of State has consented.".

(9) In subsection (5) after "the Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or (as the case may be) the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England.".
'(10) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
(6) Where a redundant building (or part) situated in England has been acquired for its preservation by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) either with or without any other land so situated, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England may by agreement with the Secretary of State undertake on his behalf the management and preservation of the building (or part) together with the other land (if any).
(7) Where the Secretary of State has under subsection (4) acquired land situated in England for its maintenance with a building (or part), the Commission may undertake, in any agreement made under subsection (6) in relation to the building (or part), the maintenance of the land on behalf of the Secretary of State.

(8) Where the Secretary of State has under subsection (5) acquired for their preservation the contents of a redundant building (or part), the Commission may undertake, in any agreement made under subsection (6) in relation to the building (or part), the preservation of the contents on behalf of the Secretary of State.".

This amendment duplicates the powers of the commission set out in an amendment to the Pastoral Measure 1968 in paragraph 12 of schedule 4. It is needed since the new Pastoral Measure 1983 is a consolidation measure which, when it is brought into force, will repeal the 1968 measure. This amendment ensures that the commission's powers to acquire redundant churches will continue under the new measure.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 122, in page 67, line 41, at end insert—
' 1A. In Schedule 1 to that Act (Institutions to which certain transfers may be made) the following entries shall he inserted in the appropriate places—

The Armouries
The British Library
The British Museum (Natural History).'

No. 123, in page 68, line 20, at end insert—

'British Museum Act 1963 (c.24)
4. At the end of section 9(1) of the British Museum Act 1963 (power of trustees to transfer pictures to certain institutions) there shall be added "or to the National Gallery Trustees or to the Tate Gallery Trustees".

British Library Act 1972 (c.54)

5. At the end of section 3(4) of the British Library Act 1972 there shall be inserted—
This subsection does not apply to pictures (as to which there is a power of transfer in section 9 of the British Museum Act 1963).".'.—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 68, line 20, at end insert—

'Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (c.78)
4. In paragraph 7 of Schedule 11 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (listed building consent) the following shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (1)—

"(1A) Where directions are in force under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, the Secretary of State may give to any local planning authority a direction that, in the case of such descriptions of applications for listed building consent as are specified in the direction, paragraph 5 or (as the case may be) paragraph 6 of this Schedule shall apply in relation to the authority.
(1B) So long as the direction is in force, paragraph 5 or 6 (as the case may be) shall apply in the case of any application of any description so specified—

(a) made to the authority after the coming into force of the direction, or
(b) made to them (but not disposed of by their granting or refusing consent) before the coming into force of the direction,

notwithstanding sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph.".'.

I am delighted to move the final amendment, which not only proves the care with which I try to consider issues raised in Committee but the speed with which my officials and the parliamentary draftsman can work.

The amendment provides a new power of direction for the Secretary of State so that he can look at an application for listed building consent which is with a local planning authority for determination but which has been the subject of representations to him, and it provides a method of doing so without having to use his power of calling the application in for his own decision with all the time and


expense of a public inquiry that that entails. I do not believe that the power will receive great use, but I believe that in covering a defect in the present powers it is a most sensible and flexible provision. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Cormack: This is a very important amendment. My hon. Friend should be thanked sincerely for moving it. I know that the Historic Buildings Council would wish that it had been on the statute book a long time ago. It will be of material assistance to the commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Title

Amendment made: No. 127, in line 11, leave out
'repeal section 4(2) of the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954'
and insert
`amend certain enactments relating to the heritage'. —[Mr. Channon.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Mr. Channon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At this hour, the House will not expect me to speak at great length on Third Reading.

Mr. Cormack: A couple of hours.

Mr. Channon: Not all of us have the stamina of my hon. Friend.
The Bill is important, and has been much improved by its passage through both Houses of Parliament. I should like to say on behalf of the Government how grateful we are to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to those in another place for the immense amount of work that went into considering the Bill, which has been much improved. I should like to add my personal thanks to hon. Members who were helpful in Committee and in the House in trying to improve the measure.
I shall not go through the Bill in detail, as hon. Members know what is in it. The changes in status of the Victoria and Albert museum and the science museum, the armouries and the royal botanic gardens, Kew, will be long-term improvements in those organisations and will be widely welcomed. We rightly spent much time discussing the creation of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, which is a great reform.
As a result of the work of both Houses of Parliament we have been able to consider the future of local purchase grants, and adding trading companies. We have discussed the merits of trustees and how they should be appointed, and we have been able to add the national history museum, the British library and the armouries to the list of institutions that can transfer objects. We have been able to do work on historic gardens and historic land. A whole host of improvements have been made by both Houses.
This is a Bill that is to be welcomed. I am grateful to the House for its reception of the measure. I am sure that whatever may be our course of action in the next few weeks or months, one thing will be commonly agreed by

all parties, which is the Bill is a modest but useful measure of reform. I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading.

Dr. David Clark: The House may not expect the Minister to speak for two hours, but it may expect me to do so. However, I shall refrain from doing so. I join the Minister in thanking our colleagues on both sides of the House for the work that they have done on the Bill. I thoroughly enjoyed it and felt that it was a useful exercise. The Bill was improved enormously in the other place. If it is not self-congratulatory, may I say that we in this place we have improved the Bill considerably. If the Minister had listened more carefully to us, it would have been even better, but we cannot expect miracles. We are grateful for the way in which the Minister has responded to the suggestions that we made as positively as possible.
I have one or two regrets. One is that we are discussing the Bill on local election day, when more hon. Members should have been here to discuss an important measure, which will affect people in the longer-term more than many of the other measures that we discuss.
The establishment of the new commission is a major step forward. I hope that it opens up a new era in the promotion of and education about the preservation of our heritage. The one thing that has united both sides of the House has been that we wish the new commission well and hope that it achieves all that we want it to. I also have great hope that, when the commission comes into existence, it will announce new developments such as building the Roman fort at South Shields. However, I am not entirely sure that it will. I am glad that we have this new quango. It is a pity that the Secretary of State is no longer here, as I should have liked to remind him of that. We wish the Bill well and hope that it passes through the other place and receives the Royal Assent quickly so that the new commission can get on with the task of protecting the environment and our heritage.

Mr. Cormack: Unfortunately, I was unable to take part in the debate on Second Reading so I am glad to be able to add a few words of welcome to the Bill now.
It is an important Bill. It is a pity that more hon. Members are not present, but those who have been involved with it have devoted a considerable amount of time and attention to it. It is a model of how Parliament at its best can work. Hon. Members who have widely differing political convictions have been determined to make a good piece of legislation even better and have brushed aside doctrinal differences and concentrated on the merits of the case.
The Bill will be far more than my right hon. Friend the Minister claimed for it. It is not a moderate measure but a landmark in heritage legislation. It will come to be regarded as such. I hope that, in 30 years' time, it will be regarded with the same respect as that which in 1953 set up the Historic Buildings Council which has served the nation extremely well. The new commission can go on from strength to strength.
I am immensely encouraged and fortified by the knowledge that, whatever happens, this Bill is unlikely to be deleted from the statute book. Indeed, it is more likely to be added to. That is tremendously important. I have always believed that the arts and heritage should never


become a political football. They have not been under successive Governments and this Government's record in that respect is notable.
Three years ago, the National Heritage Memorial Fund, to which we have all properly paid tribute, was set up by Act of Parliament. We all played our part in making that Act better. However, without the initiative of the Government, that would not have happened. By putting this measure at the forefront of the Queen's Speech last year, the Government did the heritage and arts world a great service. It is a significant measure, and I wish it well. We now await with eager anticipation the names of the commissioners and we want to know where they will house themselves. We also wish the new museum structure, for which my right hon. Friend is so responsible, well. The Bill is a major landmark in heritage legislation and I believe that 5 May 1983 will be remembered not as the day of local elections but as the day when Parliament set its seal on a heritage Bill of incalculable worth.

Mr. Sandelson: Everything that can possibly be said has been said, and I merely echo with great sincerity the sentiments that have been expressed.
I agreed with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) when he said that the Minister has been rather modest about the importance of the Bill. It is an extremely important measure and the right hon. Gentleman need not be modest about it or his achievement in presenting it to the House and bringing it to fruition. Improvements were made in Committee, and we are grateful for them. I should have liked other measures to have been accepted, but, in the fullness of time, we might persuade the Government to accept our proposals or, perhaps, they might be able to persuade us not to introduce them. I wish the measure well. It is a considerable achievement and we shall watch the commission's work in future and hope that it will have every possible success.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Before the Bill completes its passage through the House, and we hope successfully navigates any remaining shoals or storms in the other place, it is right briefly to reflect on its importance. That importance is best illustrated by the fact that the word "heritage" is in the title. When one considers that "heritage" means
that which is or may be inherited",
it is immediately apparent how far-reaching, in terms of both time and space, this measure is destined to be.
The Bill's importance is also well shown by the inclusion of the word "national" in the title. Although the nation referred to on this occasion is England, when enacted this consequence of our deliberations will be of great and lasting benefit to the United Kingdom, which will gain from our endeavours further to protect, preserve and provide for our inheritance.
I add my congratulations to my right hon. and hon. Friends on launching and piloting the Bill and on their determination to ensure that it reaches safe harbour as an Act. Once again the Government have shown clearly their commitment to conserving and promoting all that is good about this still great country of ours. I feel immensely privileged to have had the opportunity to support such determination and achievement, which links a magnificent past with what I am confident can be a splendid future.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Saint Christopher and Nevis

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Cranley Onslow): I beg to move,
That the draft Saint Christopher and Nevis Termination of Association Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved.
Although the hour is late, which explains the relatively low attendance in the House, it is right that the House should give appropriate time and attention to the detailed consideration of a matter that is important to the people of the two islands in question and to their many friends in Britain and in the Caribbean.
The order, which terminates the status of association between the United Kingdom and St. Kitts and Nevis, will be made under section 10(2) of the West Indies Act 1967. Any order made under that section is required to be laid in draft before Parliament and to be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was kind enough to give me notice of what he believes to be a flaw in the order. He said that the matter for consideration by the House is the termination of association order, not the constitution order. The constitution order is a matter for Her Majesty in Council under section 5(4) of the West Indies Act 1967, and there is no statutory requirement for the draft constitution order to be laid before Parliament. However, in response to the hon. Gentleman's request last Tuesday, a copy of the draft constitution as approved by the legislature of St. Kitts and Nevis on 16 March this year has been placed in the Library, and I hope that it has been of value to him. However, there is no procedural obligation upon us to do so in such a case.

Mr. George Robertson: I am only too aware that there is no statutory obligation to table a copy of the constitution, but it is in the best interests of the House in considering this order to have some idea of the constitution which underlies the fact that section 10(2.) of the West Indies Act 1967 has been used and not schedule 2 of that Act, which is the other route to independence.

Mr. Onslow: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I had hoped that he would have found an outline of the proposed independence constitution in the report of the constitutional conference that was presented to Parliament in January this year as Cmnd. 8796, but no doubt he will develop that point in his speech. I wished to make it clear that I have considered the matter, and I hope that it helps to dispose of his anxiety.
It is proposed that the order should come into effect on 19 September 1983. Thereupon the islands of Saint Christopher and Nevis will become a fully independent sovereign federal democratic state which should be described as the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis, or simply Saint Christopher and Nevis, or St. Kitts and Nevis for short. Her Majesty the Queen will be head of the independent state.
The Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis is the sixth and last of the Associated States in the eastern Caribbean to move to full independence, following Grenada in 1974, Dominica in 1978, St. Lucia and St. Vincent in 1979, and Antigua and Barbuda in 1981.
In view of the importance of this occasion both to us and the people of St. Kitts and Nevis, the House will


expect me to comment briefly on the geography and history of these islands. They lie in the northern part of the Leeward group of the Lesser Antilles in the eastern Caribbean. They were united by the federal Act 1882, together with Anguilla, which was formally detached in 1980, and became a state in association with the United Kingdom on 27 February 1967. The two islands, which are very attractive, are separated by a channel some two miles in width. St. Kitts has an area of 65 square miles and Nevis of 36 square miles. The population of the two islands is about 45,000: St. Kitts has a population of 35,000, and Nevis a population of 10,000.
St. Kitts was discovered by Colombus on his second voyage in 1493, and was the first island in the West Indies to be colonised by the English when Sir Thomas Warner took settlers there in 1623. It became known as the "Mother Colony of the West Indies". Intermittent warfare between the English and the French during the 17th century ravaged the economy of the island. It was, however, ceded to Britain by the treaty of Utrecht in 1713. The last fighting on the island took place in 1782 when the French captured Brimstone Hill after a memorable siege and once more took possession. The island was finally restored to Britain by the treaty of Versailles in 1783.
Nevis, also sighted by Columbus on his second voyage, was settled by the English in 1628 and soon became one of the most prosperous of the Antilles. Although it suffered from French and Spanish attacks in the 17th and 18th centuries, it maintained a sound economic position until the middle of the 19th century. Indeed, it became a popular and fashionable resort. As readers of David Walder's book will know. Lord Nelson was married to Frances Nisbett in Nevis in 1787, when he was stationed in the West Indies. Britain therefore has a historic and prolonged connection with the islands.
The West Indies Act 1967 created the concept of associated statehood. This enabled certain small territories in the eastern Caribbean, which were not then ready to move to full independence, to be given full internal self government. The United Kingdom retained responsibility only for defence and external affairs, although certain of the latter responsibilities were also delegated to the Associated States' Governments. As I have already indicated there has been a steady movement on the part of these states, over the past nine years, towards full independence.
Under the 1967 Act there are two ways in which independence can be achieved. The first is under section 10(1) whereby a two thirds majority in the legislative council and a two thirds majority of those who vote in a referendum can give an associated state the right to opt for independence, irrespective of the views of this House. Secondly, there is the alternative under section 10(2) whereby Her Majesty may by Order in Council terminate the status of association. As is usual under this alternative, the House of Assembly of St. Christopher and Nevis have by way of resolution requested termination and there is no reason not to accede to that request. This is the same method as has been followed in the transition to independence of the other five former Associated States.
British policy on the application of section 10(2) of the West Indies Act has been consistent under successive Governments. Provided that two particular criteria are met, we are prepared to move the necessary order. These

criteria are, first, that it is demonstrated to our satisfaction that independence is the wish of the majority of the people in the state, and, secondly, that the independence constitution properly protects the rights and freedoms of these people. I am satisfied that both criteria have been met in this case. A constitutional conference was held at Lancaster house in December last year under my chairmanship. The coalition Government of St. Kitts and Nevis led by Premier Dr. Simmonds and an Opposition delegation led by Mr. Moore participated. The draft before the conference had been prepared by the State Government and embodied proposals which were published in July 1982, subsequently discussed fully in the Associated State and approved by the State's House of Assembly in October. I visited the islands later in October to meet the political leaders and to familiarise myself with the issues. I was entirely satisfied that all the political parties there were agreed on the principle of independence and that this was the wish of the majority of the people.
The constitutional conference produced a report which was a thoroughly considered basis for a constitution. Regrettably the Opposition delegation felt that the proposals they put before the conference were not adequately discussed and they participated intermittently, not taking part in the signing ceremony. I am satified however that their criticisms of the manner in which the conference was conducted were unjustified.
When the St. Kitts and Nevis Government delegation were presented with reasoned, careful and constructive criticisms of their draft constitution, they showed that they were prepared to go a considerable way towards meeting the Opposition's point of view. The Opposition had full opportunity to present their own proposals as well as to comment in detail on the draft constitution before the conference. The final version of the constitution which incorporated amendments made in the light of conference decisions was debated over a period of three days in the St. Christopher and Nevis House of Assembly. The constitution was then approved by a resolution of the St. Kitts and Nevis House of Assembly, a copy of which I have had placed in the Library of the House.
The proposed constitution is similar to those under which the other associated states became independent. It does, however, contain some novel features in that it contains provisions for the autonomy of Nevis within the federation, and for secession of Nevis from the federation. The provisions for Nevis to secede would require the introduction and the passage of a Bill in the Nevis Assembly supported by a two thirds majority of the elected members. This would subsequently need to be approved by a referendum in Nevis by not less than two thirds of the votes cast by persons registered on the parliamentary electoral roll there. Further provisions would ensure that adequate notification of the proposals for separation, including the proposals for its future constitution, would be given to enable proper discussion and explanation to take place. Arrangements would be made for independent and impartial observers appointed by an independent international body to observe the procedures involved in the referendum and to report publicly on the manner in which it had been carried out. The provisions for the Nevis Legislature and Administration, the financial provisions and the right of secession will be entrenched in the constitution. For this reason, we are confident that the interests of the people of Nevis have been safeguarded.
A note on the front cover of the draft constitution order refers to the provisions of section 27, 92(1)(g) and 92(1)(h) as being the subject of continuing discussion between the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis and Her Majesty's Government. I am happy to say that the points at issue have since been resolved.
Section 27, which concerns the qualifications necessary for election as a Representative or appointment as a Senator, is slightly unusual in that it restricts eligibility to those persons who were born, or one of whose parents were born, in the islands. I am satisfied, however, that the provision has been inserted in response to public representations. In the case of a small state, I can see no objection to a provision to the effect that those who represent the people should be of the people.
The two subsections refer to citizenship of the new state, which will be the first of our remaining territories to become independent after the entry into force of the British Nationality Act 1981 on 1 January 1983.
It has been agreed that any person who was born in St. Kitts and Nevis and is a British Dependent Territories citizen immediately before independence will become a St. Kitts and Nevis citizen automatically on independence. So too will certain other British dependent territories citizens, including those who are such by virtue of a parental or grandparental connection with St. Kitts and Nevis. Provision is also made for certain persons to become citizens, who were born or otherwise had a connection with Anguilla before 19 December 1980, the date of separation of Anguilla from St. Kitts and Nevis, and who have been resident in St. Kitts and Nevis. Further provision is made for persons to become citizens after independence by virtue of birth or registration.
Those who were formerly citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of a connection with St. Kitts and Nevis became British dependent territories citizens under the 1981 Act. they will become citizens of Saint Christopher and Nevis on independence day, when they will lose their British dependent territories citizenship unless they qualify for retention of that citizenship by virtue of a connection with a remaining dependency. I emphasise that no one will lose British citizenship as a result of the independence of St. Kitts and Nevis, dual citizenship will be permitted.
As it is the wish of the majority of the people of St. Kitts and Nevis for independence, it is incumbent upon us to respond now to that wish. With full independence, the state of St. Kitts and Nevis can further develop its cooperation with neighbouring states, especially within the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, in the activities of which an independent St. Kitts and Nevis can play a full part. That will be an important contribution to the stability of the region.
Aid to St. Kitts and Nevis will continue after independence and we shall be discussing a suitable aid package with the St. Kitts and Nevis Government once the order is approved. We hope and expect that aid flows to St. Kitts and Nevis from other sources will increase as a result of independence.
Finally, I am happy to inform the House that the St. Kitts and Nevis Government have announced their intention to apply for membership of the Commonwealth. We look forward to continuing our links with them within the Commonwealth.
I know that the good wishes of the House will go to the Government and people of St. Kitts and Nevis as they approach their independence, an important stage in their history.
I now seek the House's approval of the draft Order in Council terminating the status of association with Britain from 19 September 1983.

Mr. George Robertson: There should have been an opportunity this evening for some harmony and congratulation. It could, and would, have been a rare opportunity for both sides of the House to agree on wishing well independence status for yet another of the far-flung colonies for which we still have responsibility. No one would have been happier than Ito have come to the House to commend the order giving final independence to St. Kitts and Nevis. No party would have been more satisfied with another act of decolonisation than the Labour party. But that is not to be. The responsibility for the profoundly unsatisfactory position lies squarely at the door of the British Government.
This is a two-line order., debated with only a handful of hon. Members present. The outside world must assume that the issue is non-controversial. However, as the Minister rightly said, the matter is important and of major consequence to the 45,000 people of St. Kitts and Nevis —and they, if no one else, will be viewing this debate tonight with more than ordinary interest, and so they should.
As I have already made clear to the Minister, the House has had only 48 hours to consider the constitution of St. Kitts and Nevis. That is the precise time during which the constitution document has been available in the Library—and that only because of a parliamentary question I tabled last week. I do not wish to labour the matter. The Minister has been good enough to answer my point, of which I gave him prior notice.
The Library assures me, and the reading of previous debates under the West Indies Acts shows that it is a matter of form, that the documents associated with such orders are tabled in the Library so that hon. Members, quite rightly, should have the basic information on which to make up their minds on what are, in themselves, simple and elementary orders.
Moreover, we debate this order tonight with no information about the views on the constitution of the House of Assembly of St. Kitts and Nevis. The Minister told me again on Tuesday, in answer to a parliamentary question, that there is no record of debates in the St. Kitts and Nevis Parliament. Thai was all the information he offered, other than to tell us in his speech this evening that a copy of the resolution has been tabled in the Library. It is bad enough for us to be denied an early sight of the constitutional document itself, but to have to rely on a column and a half in the magazine "Caribbean Insight" for the only information about the islanders' views on this constitution is no way to give serious consideration to an associated state being made an independent country within the Commonwealth.
This House does itself no good when it considers such important issues with meagre and insufficient information, as we do today. At the very least, we should have a supplementary White Paper — supplementary to the White Paper on the constitutional conference—outlining the ascertained views of the people of the country affected


and their representatives, following the results of the constitutional conference at Lancaster House. That is the very least, but it is far the ideal.
However, such inconsideration and discourtesy are not the most important charge against the Government. My main charge—it is a serious one—is this. There has been a clearly defined policy on establishing the desire to terminate association, when particular provisions of the West Indies Act 1967 are involved. When section 10(2) of that Act is involved the criteria are as the Minister outlined this evening and as outlined in this Parliament by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) in the debate on the termination of association with Antigua on 8 July. The hon. Gentleman said, and it is worth repeating what he said, because his words go slightly beyond what the Minister said this evening:
The British Government's policy on the application of section 10(2) of the West Indies Act is the same as that followed by the previous Government. Provided that two particular criteria are met, we are prepared to move the necessary order. These criteria are, firstly, that it is demonstrated to our satisfaction that independence is the wish of the majority of the people in the State, and, secondly, that the independence constitution properly protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of those people".
In that debate in 1981 the hon. Gentleman went on to say a number of things that the House would do well toconsider this evening. He said, about Antigua:
Although the Antigua Labour Party Government first indicated to the British Government in 1978 that they wished to move forward to independence, they had not, in the previous general election in 1976, been elected with a mandate for independence. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, the Minister of State, visited Antigua in August 1979 and reminded the Antiguan Government that if they had changed their minds about independence they must demonstrate to us that this was what the people wanted. They must also set about drafting an independence constitution.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
The more fundamental issue of determining the people's wishes for the State's future was settled by the general election which took place in April 1980.
The paragraph later makes it clear that
The manifestos put out by the ALP, the PLM and the unsuccessful Antigua Caribbean Liberation Movement all included a commitment to independence."—[Official Report, 8 July 1981; Vol. 8, c. 515.]
Thus, in 1980 the present Government were clear enough about what was needed to demonstrate that the section 10(2) route to independence was to be followed. Sadly, however, the contrast to that clear and thorough approach to establishing public opinion—the one which has been adopted for St. Kitts and Nevis—could not be more marked. The treatment of St. Kitts and Nevis shows all the signs of the British Government hastily attempting to abdicate their responsibilities and wash their hands of the people there.

Mr. Onslow: Nonsense.

Mr. Robertson: As the Minister confirmed, there are two routes to terminating association under the 1967 Act. One is via the procedures of schedule 2, which provides for a number of decisions by the legislatures concerned, supplemented by a referendum. The other route is termination by Order in Council, which has no such safeguard and where a judgment has to be made, initially by the Minister and the Government, and then by Parliament, along the traditional lines outlined by the hon. Member for Shoreham in 1980.
The responsibility to establish the opinion of the people must therefore be all the heavier in the short-cut route than in the more open, clear-cut route of the referendum, and I have no doubt that the Minister, from what he said, would agree with that analysis. That is why the Government were so strict with the Antiguans, and rightly so.
But where is the evidence in the St. Kitts and Nevis situation of the wish of the majority of the people? Look at the facts. Elections last took place in St. Kitts and Nevis in 1980 and were themselves precipitated to establish a mandate for independence. In those elections the Labour party lost power but still got 5·.05 per cent. of the total vote in St. Kitts and Nevis. The People's Action Movement, standing only in St. Kitts, got 33·9 per cent. of the vote and the NRP, standing in Nevis alone, got only 16.02 per cent. of the total St. Kitts and Nevis vote but polled 85 per cent. of the vote in Nevis.
The coalition, which therefore won the election against the Labour party, which was testing the electorate specifically on independence, was made up, first, of the PAM, which was at best lukewarm to independence and certainly made it a secondary objective of its programme, and, secondly, of the NRP, which openly campaigned in Nevis for a secessionist mandate for that island. Since the Labour party, with a majority supporting it at that last election—which was all of three years ago—is against the present constitution, where is the Minister's new test of opinion? How can he be so confident as to make the assertion tonight that he is satisfied that the majority of the people are in favour of this constitution?

Mr. Onslow: I asserted clearly that the majority of the people are in favour of independence, too.

Mr. Robertson: The Minister of course said that the majority of the people are in favour of independence, but what the constitutional conference was concerned with was getting a constitution for that independence. What is required under the traditional procedures of section 10(2) of the Act is a satisfactory belief that the people are in favour of the independence that is on offer. If there are serious doubts on that score, it is up to the Minister to satisfy this Parliament that those doubts have been allayed and that a majority of the people are in favour of the independence that is being legislated for.
Page 2 of the White Paper states:
The British Government, having considered the steps taken by the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis prior to the Resolution in the House of Assembly on 6 October, decided that the necessary conditions had been satisfied to justify the calling of a Conference".
On page 14 of the White Paper the Premier of St. Christopher and Nevis, The Honourable Dr. Kennedy A. Simmonds, asserts:
On October 20 and 21 the Honourable Minister of State visited St. Kitts and Nevis and saw at first hand the general acclaim for independence by all parties.
I am told that the Minister's visit was surrounded by the presentation of a petition objecting to the Government's White Paper with at least 10,000 signatures out of an island population of 45,000 and, on 18 September, one demonstration against the Government's proposals for independence was attended by more than 9,000 people —a sizeable proportion of the population. That is just before the Minister arrived in the island to see this general


acclaim for independence. What did the Minister see that so persuaded him, when he tells us nothing of the clear evidence that shows this body of support?
On page 19 of the White Paper Mr. Lee Moore, the Leader of the Opposition and former Premier, outlines those people and organisations on the islands who have objected to the proposed constitution. It is a formidable and influential list. Can the Minister tell us whether the people on that list are now satisfied with the terms of the new constitution? How did he test their opinion? Is he satisfied that the residual resentment that clearly existed then has now been allayed with the prospect of independence on 19 September?
In the past the British Government have insisted on a clear sign of a desire for independence by the majority. How will that he assessed in the absence of a recent enough general election or referendum? The Minister has not made that clear. It seems that on the surface no clear evidence, apart from the legislative assembly's majority, has been produced to show the will of the people on this issue in St. Kitts and Nevis.
The largest party polling the largest number of single votes is opposed to it. The second partner in the coalition is open about its secessionist mandate and ambitions. On page 24 of the White Paper the leader of the Nevis party, the Honourable Simeon Daniel states:
We of my Party, the NRP, were elected on a mandate for secession.
He continues and states that the people of St. Kitts
would prefer us not to go, but they will not oppose our wishes if and when we take steps to carry out our mandate. The constitutional proposals before us reflect this wise and statemanlike view.
Mr. Daniel concludes:
Our Government has, however, conceded that Nevis may secede, if this is what it eventually decides to do.
Can the Minister assure us that this is a sound and secure basis for the independence of a nation? Why have not we been offered any explanation for this apparent break with previously recognised criteria for adopting the Order-in-Council method of terminating the status of association?
It is not as though there are no residual complaints in the island. The Opposition's objections did not stop at the constitutional conference at Lancaster house. In the latest edition of "Caribbean Insight", which is our only source of material for what went on in the debate.
Mr. Lee Moore is quoted as saying that
That document"—
In other words, the constitution document—
was 'ill-conceived, unworkable and unfair'".
Mr. Moore
warned that it might well lead to 'strife' between the two states of the union. In particular, he was insistent that Nevis should have been given an even greater say in its own affairs and not relegated to 'inferior' status.
As the Minister has made clear, the status of Nevis in the constitution seems to provide for the in-built instability of the small nation. Mr. Lee Moore has said that there is no commitment to permanence. The words of the leader of the secessionist party in Nevis which I have quoted seem to underline the truth of that statement only too well. There seems to be no commitment to the unitary nature of the State with which the Minister made great play in his letter of 12 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands). The Minister said:
The present constitutional proposals offer, in my view, a unique opportunity to bring St. Kitts-Nevis to independence as a unitary state. I am sure you will agree that in the interests of

stability in the Caribbean as a whole we ought not to lose this chance to do what we can to prevent further fragmentation in the region.
I should like to hear from the Minister what sort of guarantees he believes that he possesses that such fragmentation will not occur, when the constitution contains a formula for the secession of Nevis on a smaller vote in that island than the secessionist party got in the last election that it contested.
This should have been an opportunity for welcoming the prospect of a new nation's arrival in the world and the Commonwealth on 19 September. We wish the nation well and hope sincerely that our country can help it through these troubled economic times. But if my speech has seemed somewhat negative, that is not because of a desire to nitpick or to be sanctimonious but because we believe that the Government have seriously let down this House and the people of St. Kitts and Nevis by not ensuring a more stable and more popularly based constitution to justify the order.
The Opposition will not vote against the order, because we have no right to defy the decision of the elected Parliament of St. Kitts and Nevis. But we have the right to point out that a wholly unnecessary burden has been placed on that country at its birth—a country to which, however, we pledge our sincere and lasting friendship.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I welcome the order, but with mixed feelings. I share some of the misgivings expressed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), but, in answer to some of the arguments that he has advanced, I would say that St. Kitts and Nevis would never have been brought to independence as a unitary state without the provisions in the constitution which now guarantee Nevis the possibility of secession in the future. The implications of the secession of Nevis—a small island with a population of only 10,000—are very important in many respects, not only in the Caribbean but in the international forum.
The history of associated statehood in the Caribbean is not, in my view, a happy one. The British Government, when they first entered into associated statehood, should have taken a much greater responsibility for the economic and social development of the islands concerned. Unlike the New Zealand associated statehood of some of the Pacific islands, the British Government did not take their responsibilities seriously enough. There is a general feeling in the islands that Britain was attempting to abandon them as quickly as it could, and that in 1974—illegitimately and irresponsibly, in my view—it took the opportunity of section 10(2) of the West Indies Act 1967 to give independence to Grenada.
Grenada is an important example in relation to this order. No referendum was held there. Few people there understood the implications of independence, and few realised that within a few years they would be living under an extreme Left-wing revolutionary Government dominated by Cuba and increasingly dependent on the eastern bloc of Europe and some of the more Left-wing Governments of the Mediterranean and the middle east. That is the future that the 1974 order gave to the people of Grenada. Only last year, I visited that now most unhappy island with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and was shocked at the appalling way in which the economy and the freedom of the people had degenerated.
I believe that Britain has a special responsibility to the islands with which we have been associated for so long. My hon. Friend the Minister of State made glowing references to the history of these islands. It is not just that the famous Admiral Nelson found a rather unhappy partner in Mrs. Nisbet of Nevis and was associated gloriously with the history of the Caribbean. The islands made a major contribution to the economy of this country, and especially to the wealth of many of our leading families. If one asks where the money came from to build many of the country homes of this country, one finds that an astonishing number of them depended on the tiny island communities of the Caribbean. That is just one more reason why we have a special responsibility to those islands.
In my view, the way in which independence was brought about in Grenada was irresponsible and even illegitimate. A Minister of State cannot just visit the islands for a couple of days and then tell the House of Commons that he sensed a general understanding and agreement for independence. There has been no referendum. Because there has been no referendum, the issues have not been properly discussed with the people of the islands and they do not understand the implications. I maintain that view strongly. We were wrong to proceed under section 10(2) in relation to Grenada and we are wrong again now.
I refer briefly to the status of Nevis with its 10,000 population and to the speculations as to whether it will remain with St. Kitts. I should have thought that Anguilla would have been a shining beacon to encourage Nevis eventually to adopt the same procedure. Anguilla remains a dependant of this country. It has benefited enormously as a result of secession. Never before have its people received so much assistance and they could never have developed their economy in the way that they have now achieved.
I believe that the examples of Anguilla, Montserrat, the Turks and Caicos islands and the Cayman islands—none of them very far from St. Kitts-Nevis and all with very similar histories — will suggest to Nevis a means to achieve a more secure future. I am therefore very doubtful whether St. Kitts-Nevis will remain a unitary state.
I should refer, too, to the development of internal democracy in a federation with population much smaller than that of most parliamentary constituencies in this country. I do not think that any of us could guarantee the future of democracy in the hands of such a small group. It might be the ideal Greek state, but I doubt whether freedoms and democracies can be guaranteed in such a small state. Surely the history of Grenada and that of Dominica has demonstrated that.
How do we guarantee the freedom of elections in such a small state? It is something that cannot be guaranteed in Guyana, where it has been usurped and undermined. The system of elections has been taken over by the state and used by the Government of that state to ensure that they remain continuously in power. That is why—the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) might reflect upon this—when a Government in the West Indies are in power they are in favour of independence, and when they form the Opposition they are not. That is the history of the negotiations that are outlined in the White Paper.
In Dominica, the Prime Minister, Mrs. Eugenia Charles, insisted upon the independence of the electoral

machinery. That insistence was maintained in the face of bitter opposition from the legal experts of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It was that, and the loyalty and independence of the civil servant appointed as electoral commissioner by the governor-general, that enabled Dominica to hold an election that ousted what was becoming a tyrannical regime of the left. It was tyrannical and utterly corrupt. The immediately previous Prime Minister has spent some time in gaol, and in my view he should remain there for a long time.
Has the Minister made adequate provision for the independence of the electoral machinery in the independence constitution? I note what is set out in paragraph 13(g) in the White Paper. I ask my hon. Friend to tell me how the supervisor of elections will be guaranteed independence of the Government in power and of the Opposition. How are we to ensure that the boundaries of the constituencies are not gerrymandered in such a small state unless there is a guarantee of independence? What is the future of a supervisor of elections in St. Kitts and Nevis who displeases the party that is eventually elected to form a Government? Would he be able to remain as a civil servant? Would he be able to continue to earn his living on the island or would he have to flee to another island, or even to this country, to continue his life? That is something that a civil servant has to take into consideration on the islands.
One of the factors that instigated the British Government to adopt their present policy on associated states was the fear that we would have at some time to defend the territorial integrity of St. Kitts and Nevis, and even Anguilla, against an attack. The House may believe that that sounds far fetched, but let us remember that Cuba is not far away from the islands and that there are many gun-running vessels in the Caribbean that are creating mayhem on the high seas between the Cuba and Florida coasts and throughout the Bahamas. These islands could become, as some of them were in the past, nests for pirates, gun-runners and runners of cocaine and other drugs.
I believe that the islands will need defence and will need our assistance to maintain their independence and security arrangements, whether they are independent or whether they remain as they are. Who will undertake that security? Will we send a task force to St. Kitts, or will we let the people stew in their own juice? The arrangements for the security of the islands leave a great deal to be desired and leave them open to invasion by any acquisitive group of people; it need not necessarily be another sovereign state but simply a group of people. We must lead a serious discussion into how security can be provided. I know that the independent islands of Barbados, and indeed, Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica are equally concerned, although they have a much larger population.
I have touched briefly on the economic situation. When we consider that these islands earn most of their money from the production and export of sugar and to some extent from tourism, we are talking about two industries which are vulnerable to international market conditions and also to the depredations of the sugar beet farmers of this country and the European Community. Over the future economy of the islands hangs a large question mark. I should like the Minister to tell us, if he will, what kind of a golden handshake he will give to the islands. Aid agencies which were not there before will go in, but I do not believe that there is proper provision for considered


economic development and diversification out of sugar. The price for sugar on the world market is below £100 per tonne. I do not know what the cost of production is on St. Kitts, but I know that a producer with one of the lowest costs in the Caribbean produces sugar at £250 per tonne. That is slightly above the special import price into the EC. From those figures one can see that the major industry of St. Kitts and Nevis may not be viable for the future. That argument applies to the other islands which were previously sugar dependent such as Jamaica, Barbados in particular, Trinidad and Guyana.
In regard to judicial matters, I am glad that the islands are retaining possible appeals to the Queen in Council. Can the Minister spell out how the court of appeal in the island will be conducted and how we will maintain the independence of the judiciary which has been shared by all six islands? Are we confident that it has sufficient resources and independence to maintain an independent position?
There is another omission from the White Paper to which I should like to refer. The hon. Member for Hamilton may have found this in his examination of the constitution which unfortunately I was not able to examine. In my view, the provision whereby in Britain we cannot sue the Crown is not applicable in the islands, particularly if they adopt a Socialist form of economy. This means that nobody can sue a state-run corporation, let alone the Government. This is a grave omission which will not add to internal security or democratic procedures. It has been resisted in the past by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It was brought up in the 1974 independence constitutional talks under Lord Balniel and was rejected. It is a major omission. I hope that it has not happened in this case and that common sense has prevailed.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Britain has been under serious pressure from the United Nations and other bodies to bring these nations to independence. But the settlement was made with the United Nations special committee on decolonisation that associated statehood was acceptable to them as a method of granting independence of a particular kind in a particular circumstances. However, now that we are abandoning that position, all those states will be independent members of the United Nations. At least we can expect that St. Kitts and Nevis will follow the example of the other associated states. That means that in the international forum they have as great a vote at the United Nations General Assembly as the United States or the United Kingdom. Is that a particularly just and fair method of conducting international affairs? Can St. Kitts and Nevis sustain the necessary resources to back up their representatives in the United Nations? What are we doing? Should we not have pursued a settlement in the United Nations that would have made it possible for the associated states to be able to present their case forcefully and properly, and backed by resources, to the United Nations rather than leaving them in the vulnerable position that they are now in, in which they have to seek for partners to get anything at all that they need from the United Nations and its agencies. That is a grave omission.
I come now to my more positive remarks. This is the last of the six associated states to be given so-called independence. It will open up the path for constitutional arrangements between the six and the larger islands in the British Caribbean — Barbados, Trindad, Jamaica and Guyana. For that reason, if the British Government

support the Caribbean Community not just with money but with expertise and technical assistance, with the objective of developing the economy, of helping the evolution of democracy in their internal affairs, and of assisting social development, that is, education and health on the islands, we might, in combination with partners such as the United States, Canada and possibly other Commonwealth partners such as Australia, begin to be able to provide a future for the people of those islands, which contains an element of hope, and which will enable them to see a future of security, in which they can earn their living adequately for themselves and their families.
Without that move and a determined effort by the British Government to pursue those ends, we are condemning those islands to tyranny, economic poverty and dependence on any other rogue nation or individual who wishes to undermine and usurp the independence and the dignity of the people on those islands.
I call on Britain and the Minister of State to make a commitment to those islands, to assist in a determined and enthusiastic way, and to develop, in partnership with other Caribbean countries, through Caricom and the Caribbean Development Bank, an economic system that can at least rival that of the metropolitan islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique, which they can visit easily, so that the EC plays its part in the development of those islands and we do not throw them on the dust heap of history and let them moulder away with no future and with social injustice, and prey to every evil influence within and without the islands.
I hope that the Minister of State will confirm our determination to assist our allies and friends of long standing. I have personally enjoyed their hospitality, kindness, generosity, sincerity and ability. I wish them well in their independence. I hope that it will be prosperous, bright, democratic and free. However, Britain and the Commonwealth still have a major part to play in their future.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: I have listened, as, I am sure, have all hon. Members, with considerable interest and respect to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells). He is clearly versed in the affairs of the Caribbean and the two tiny islands with which we are dealing today in a way which goes far beyond my knowledge of that area and the problems to which he has referred. I therefore await with equal interest what the Minister will say.
Although I appreciate and, to some extent, share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about individual freedoms, democratic operations and the workings of territories that are gaining their independence, the same considerations must have applied ever since Britain granted independence to much larger counties. We witness today how some of the major nations in Africa cannot pretend to the type of democracy that the hon. Gentleman, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends would wish them to have. We often regret that deeply when we observe the internal affairs of countries that have gained their independence.
Today, however, it is impossible and it would be quite inappropriate for Britain to deny independence to any people, the great majority of whom desire it. I am therefore impressed by what the Minister said about the clear wish of the majority of people in these two tiny islands to achieve independence. I work from that


premise. We have a duty and a responsibulity to confer on those people what they wish—independence—in spite of all the dangers that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out.
In spite of what the hon. Members for Hertford and Stevenage and for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, I prefer to treat this as a felicitous occasion rather than one for cavilling or for the introduction of sour notes. I would like to extend the good wishes of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the people of St. Kitts and Nevis and wish the federation that will come into being later this year well.
We are discussing tiny populations in tiny islands and must recognise the difficulties that had to be overcome to reach this stage of the order. The problems that remain must still be resolved. We are aware that there has been a great deal of political acrimony but we all hope that, with formal independence, political divisions will concentrate less on abstruse constitutional rights and more on the best way in which to improve the economy of the islands and achieve rising living standards for the inhabitants. We should congratulate the island Government on their plans for investment in new industries, and on their attempts to diversify industry, especially on Nevis. Tourism is a major growth industry, and I wonder when and whether I shall be able to visit those beautiful islands before too long.
Although formal ties with Britain will cease later this year, I hope that new associations will be formed. After about 270 years of British sovereignty, with all the links that that entails, I have no doubt that the friendship that many of us feel for the islands will be perpetuated in many other directions. I welcome the order, and express our continuing friendship for the last of our Caribbean associated states on the achievement of full independence.

Mr. Onslow: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) for the fact that he is the only hon. Member, apart from myself, who has given unqualified support to the order. His support may be qualified to the extent that it appears that he is looking forward to an early Caribbean cruise, but I should not make too much of that for fear of upsetting his electors. I am grateful for the tone of his remarks, and I shall respond to as many points as I can, although some of them were detailed. I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) will forgive me if I do not go into enormous detail in answer to some of their points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage made a rather mixed-up speech, partly because of his acute personal feelings, which came through strongly in many of his remarks. His speech was none the worse for that, but he seemed to have both an optimistic and a pessimistic view. Occasionally it appeared to me that he was rather sorry that we were debating this order tonight, and that he did not wish St. Kitts and Nevis to become independent, although he did not develop an alternative solution. However, the House recognised the sincerity of his worries.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Government do not see this order as casting St. Kitts and Nevis adrift, any more than the independence formalities of the previous associated states were intended to cast them adrift. We know what happened in Grenada, but it was not an

inevitable consequence of independence. There may be important lessons to be learnt, but they do not include the lesson that we should not grant independence to states of that size. Even smaller states have achieved independence and have survived.
I accept my hon. Friend's anxiety about security, which is perceived especially clearly in the eastern Caribbean. There has been a series of discussions about security between the Caribbean Commonwealth countries and other countries that are concerned with the area, which is beginning to put together a more effective system of mutual protection. However, it will take some time to fulfil their objective. They are certainly coming together in their own defence in a way in which they have never come together in their politics, and some encouragement can be derived from that.
I am clear in my mind that this is a process that Britain should support and try to move forward at the pace that the local independent states accept. We cannot force it, but we can and do support it. Indeed, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth is particularly interested in this issue and I have talked at length to him about it, as I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage has done.
I know of no constitution that can guarantee freedom of elections. Attempts in this House to gerrymander constituency boundaries are not unheard of. We have only our own vigilance, strength and participation—

Mr. George Robertson: That is a very serious allegation.

Mr. Onslow: I am sorry. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not been a Member of Parliament for as long as I have, but I recall such a case.
There can be no doubt about the fact that cast-iron guarantees of freedom cannot be provided. However, in so far as they can be provided, those in this constitution go a good way towards doing that. The guarantee of electoral freedom is provided by the provision of a supervisor of elections and an electoral commission comprised of both Government and Opposition representatives. I hope that that will prove more effective than was the case in Dominica. It is a lesson learnt, and, I hope, profited from.
The judiciary will remain independent, under the provisions of the constitution, notably chapter 9. The appellate court will remain the eastern Caribbean supreme court, as at present, and I hope that that will give my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage comfort. In some ways I wish that he had made his points .at the constitutional conference. [Interruption.] I do not know whether I should have invited him, but he has been talking about constitution making, and the time for that has now passed. The hon. Member for Hamilton snorts, but apparently he has not yet understood that we are discussing not the constitution but the termination of association and whether to proceed with independence.
The Government of St. Kitts and Nevis have asked us to embark on that process on the basis of a constitution that they have drawn up and which they see as suited to their needs. We cannot dictate it or tamper with it. They are the arbiters of their needs and that is why the constitution is theirs, not ours. The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the impression that we should have debated it line by line and that we should have changed it if we did not like it. That is not the function of this House. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has understood the process.

Mr. George Robertson: In 1980, why did the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) tell the Antiguans to go to the people in a general election if the Government were so unconcerned about the need for a mandate? They were concerned that a mandate was required, but the Minister did not seek that sort of mandate in St. Kitts and Nevis.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman is very astute and percipient. Such a procedure was not thought appropriate in the case of St. Kitts and Nevis—as distinct from that of Antigua—for reasons I shall now explain to him. I hope that he can follow my explanation. The difficulty is that, although the Antigua Labour party first told the British Government in 1978 that it wanted to move towards independence, it had not been elected in 1976 with a mandate for independence. Indeed, in opposition, it had campaigned against independence without a referendum. Thus it is hardly strange that it should have been told that, as it had come to power on one platform and now wished to stand on another, it might be as well to test it by the appropriate means of a referendum.—[Interruption.] I do not know whether it is like the Labour party. However, I have explained the difference. The party in power in Antigua did not have a mandate to embark on that course. The difference is marked and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not had more access to the type of information that might have helped him. We have not tried to hide the facts or the progress that we have made. The issue has been in the public domain since October last year and before. The fact that independence was being embarked upon has been widely known.
Even that issue was not the point of departure. The question of independence is not new. The first moves to organise a constitutional conference were made in 1979 under a Labour party Government led by someone whose powerful advocacy I recognise in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
When informal talks were held, the Nevis issue was discovered. Representatives insisted on a referendum before independence. I take the point. That was the stumbling block. But it was overridden. It was agreed that the move should be to independence as early as possible in 1980. That proposal came to grief when the ruling party lost the election and went into Opposition. That election was not called because of any dispute among the parties about the desirability of independence. The Government of Dr. Kennedy Simmonds and his party were cautious about independence. Perhaps the Minister has seen the latest manifesto which is worth examining for a moment. It states:
The position of the PAM on this vital matter is that independence is not merely a catchword nor the means for a few people to secure more power. It is a serious, vital and meaningful development committed to the people which can be undertaken only with the firm knowledge and informed consent of the people. People must be aware that when the celebration and merriment has died down, serious financial and constitutional responsibilities lie ahead.
The report states what it will do if given power:
The PAM will prepare and publish for the study of the public a document setting out, amongst other things, the financial implications of independence, the projected cost of foreign representation, the cost of other services essential to independence, additional sources of revenue to meet the financial burden of independence, and areas of increased taxation which the public must inevitably suffer".

Proposals are made for constitutional reform, especially in human rights, the improvement of the administration of justice, the preservation of democracy, the protection of rights and the freedom of the people.
It also says that the
PAM will come to grips with serious domestic problems to ensure that independence means a better quality of life for our people.
The report adds that community meetings to study and discuss the issue should be held throughout the country to involve people in the process and to make them understanding partners. The problems must he solved before any precipitous and consequently disastrous move to independence. It says that the PAM does not intend to entertain the question of independence until the preceding conditions are satisfied.
That clearly means that when such conditions are satisfied the PAM will move to entertain the question of independence. When the leaders of St. Kitts and Nevis came over for the constitutional conference they took the time to talk to their many countrymen living and working here in the midlands and Birmingham in particular, about what was proposed. There was full and fair consultation with all the political parties, which agreed that independence was desirable. The debate was simply about how that would be achieved and what agreement they could reach among themselves to form a constitution that would be the foundation for independence. This is the constitution that they have succeeded in forming, in debating and passing in their assembly thus enabling us to go forward as we wish to do. There is no other way. There was no alternative but for us to say, as we have said, that this satisfies our criteria. We believe that it has been put forward in good faith, and that it has been formulated thoroughly and carefully, not recklessly. We are therefore bound to discharge our duty in the matter, which is to go forward with the processes we are considering tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage said that my visit to St. Kitts and Nevis could scarcely turn me into an independence expert, but by the same token I can say to him that people demonstrating on one side or the other outside my car at the airport—they were noisy and friendly demonstrations—proves nothing except that there were noisy and friendly demonstrations and someone organised them. How many people came to which demonstration and how they are weighed in the balance is not a matter for me to test. All I was clear about was that there were a great many people there, they were interested in the subject and there were no demonstrations against independence.
The people of St. Kitts and Nevis have a marvellous 18th century quality in one respect. They are great pamphleteers and polemicists. I think the spirit of Wilkes lives on somewhere in the Caribbean, they write verse, they print, they have a lively political environment. But that lively political environment, in the months that we have been discussing their independence in the public domain, has not produced any serious and sustained public opposition to the course of independence upon which they have invited us to launch them. Indeed, it is possible to say that opposition to independence has declined rather than increased as time has passed The latest petition to reach me from the islands, which sets out in grand terms a number of strong objections by someone who has been a prominent opponent of the provisions of independence and the constitution, bears the grand total of two signatures.


Against the background of the minimal representations that have come to hon. Members—the attendance for our debate this evening does not suggest the storm of indignation that the hon. Member for Hamilton was trying to whip up in his opening remarks—I think that we are rightly embarked on a course of which I hope the House will approve.
The key to independence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage pointed out, is the right to secede. That is admitted. It is unusual and could lead to further fragmentation. Plenty of forces in the Caribbean could lead to further fragmentation and it must be conceded that this is one of them, but it is also the key to unity. It has been the placing of the right to secede in Nevis' hands that has made it possible for the unitary state to go forward. That was the stumbling block removed.
I hope—I am sure that the leaders of the coalition hope—that this will not be needed but it is there and it is a powerful force for unity in the St. Kitts and Nevis federation. It certainly represents the decision of the majority of the elected members of the assembly, duly discussing and debating the matter in their country and in their own time.
We cannot complain if they come to a decision with which some of us disagree. I believe that they have come to the right decision. I hope that the House will agree. I hope that the House will share their faith in their future and approve the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Saint Christopher and Nevis Termination of Association Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved.

Housing (Houses in Multiple Occupation) [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to consolidate and amend the powers of local authorities as regards houses occupied by persons who do not form a single household, to empower the Secretary of State to specify standards to apply to such houses and to confer duties on local authorities to enforce standards in such houses, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which are payable out of such moneys under any other enactment; and
(b) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of the said Act of the present Session.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who had the good fortune to be successful in the ballot. It is of particular relevance to hon. Members representing inner London constituencies. I believe that the impulse for the Bill arose out of the disastrous fire in Clanricarde gardens, in Kensington.
On Second Reading the Bill received all-party support. I was pleased to catch Mr. Speaker's eye and express my support for it. The Standing Committee will begin work on Wednesday, and I hope that it will make good progress. Multiple occupation of houses is a big subject for a private Member's Bill. It is a subject that requires legislation, and the Department should take it under its wing. The Minister and his Department have taken careful note of the Bill's intentions. I am sure that the Minister will have in mind the main intentions of the Bill for the Department's legislative programme.
The decision to propose the money resolution is a good sign and a statement of the Department's good intentions towards the measure. The proposal to underwrite the Bill with the necessary funds will be welcomed on both sides of the House.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): During the debate on the Second Reading I outlined the action that the Government had already taken to improve the standards and availability of houses in multiple occupation. I explained that we had already made some important strengthening of the law in that area.
We very much share the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir. B. Rhys Williams) and the sponsors of the Bill to see further improvements in the housing conditions of the most disadvantaged, but, as I said on Second Reading, we have reservations about some of the specific provisions of the Bill, especially their practicability and their cost.
The resolution will enable the Bill to pass to Committee where detailed consideration can be given to its proposals and practicability. As my hon. Friend said, we hope to start work next Wednesday. It will be for the Committee to decide what treatment the Bill then receives.

Question put and agreed to.

Sherborne Close, Hereford (Proposed Sale)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I wish to express my appreciation to Mr. Speaker for his kindness in selecting this subject for debate tonight. I am especially grateful because the issue affects a substantial number of my constituents who have been concerned about this matter.
I also wish to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for coming to the House to participate in this important subject. I feel some relief that we approach this stage of the business of the House at what is, compared with the remainder of the week, a modestly early hour. That is a plus point.
The saga of Sherborne close in Hereford has been going on for a long time. My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the background, and I do not intend to take much time this evening going through it. It is known not only to the Minister but to the residents of Sherborne close, Hereford city council and a substantial number of people within the city of Hereford.
My hon. Friend will agree that the matter has gone on for far too long. When the Minister for Housing and Construction gave his agreement to proposals put forward by the chairman of housing in Hereford, Councillor Mike Prendergast, I thought that all was well and in hand. I raised a small cheer and thought it was another problem written off the problem list. I was a little premature. I note with a certain dry interest that it is now three years and two days since I first wrote to the Minister with the proposals. It would be wrong to say that we are no further forward, but we are not there yet. There is a logjam, which I want to get cleared.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that has been done by Councillor Prendergast. As a Labour councillor in the city of Hereford, he is not a political friend of mine, but he has nevertheless been devoted to the cause of housing in the city and has espoused many innovative developments in his time. It is particularly appropriate that I should pay this small tribute to his work on the night that he retires from being a councillor in the city of Hereford. I hope that how I feel about his contribution to the city will be taken on board by the people of the area.
The stage is now set for a transfer of ownership from the Spiral housing association to the Hereford city council, at outstanding loan debt value, of the scheme known as Sherborne close, but with one small but significant aspect unresolved — the outstanding litigation against the architect and contractor for the scheme. The scheme, which is now seven, eight, nine years into occupation, showed substantial defects in design and construction. Alas, the architectural practice that was responsible for the design is no longer. I believe that the architect is no longer in the country and the firm of contractors is not in a position to rectify the damage that has been done.
I have great sympathy with the councillors of Hereford, who are reluctant to take the final step of the transfer of ownership without being quite certain that what is, after all, an unconventional manoeuvre, will not land them in hot water. I have been through the issues as best I can

—the various questions that are involved—and I have attempted to set them out in a logical order. We need to clarify whether Hereford city council loses the right or ability to take over the litigation that has been initiated by the present owners, Spiral housing association, against the architect and contractors, if it has bought the flats that are known as Sherborne close and which are defective, at a knockdown price, which reflects the defects. It is much along the lines of the purchase of seconds which are known to be defective.
If Hereford does not have the right or the ability, with whom does the responsibility lie to seek to recover the moneys that are involved in the rectification? Is it left with Spiral housing association to continue to sue for what is, in effect, the missing sum? If Hereford has not lost the right, or still has the duty to sue, should the city council pour more good ratepayers' money after bad in conducting expensive litigation against defendants who are men of straw? If it is clear that the defendants are men of straw —I believe that there is advice to that effect—and that a successful judgment would not lead to the recovery of the moneys to correct the defects, does that constitute an action that could render the council open to censure or complaint? Those are the questions that need to be answered to enable the councillors to come to a proper decision on how to proceed.
For the residents of Sherborne close, the questions of who should do what and to whom are academic points. They could be described as lawyers' points. At the end of the day, they would dismiss them as such. For them, the situation is clearly unsatisfactory. The present owner, Spiral housing association., although it has initiated litigation, does not appear to be actively pursuing it—understandably so, for the reasons that I have outlined. It does not have the resources to rectify matters and understandably it has been refused housing association grant for the purpose, because of the nature of the way in which the defects have arisen.
Nevertheless, the situation must alter. The objective of any change must be to achieve rectification of the defects and upgrading as appropriate. The achievement of those objectives will make these properties attractive to tenants to live in and to purchase under the right-to-buy provisions and, by so doing, return money to the public purse. Failure to achieve those objectives will lead to an inevitable further deterioration of the close, even to the point of the generation of a slum, and that cannot be tolerated.
The certainty of no sales of the other properties not immediately affected by construction defects can only add to the already considerable and justifiable grievances and frustrations of the tenants. It is apparent that there is need for an urgent resolution of the problem. Indeed, that is essential. Hereford has the money set aside in the housing investment programme for this year, of which one month has already gone, and I am grateful to the Minister for his assistance in that respect.
Hereford city council told the tenants in a circular which was sent round in February that it hoped to see the work start as from 1 April 1983. As I say, here we are in May. Expectations therefore have been raised and I am sure that nobody wants to see them dashed. The problems have been going on long enough. I am also certain that the council acted in good faith in advising the tenants of their reasonable hopes.
I cannot emphasise too strongly how much help and constructive thought has been given by the Minister, the


Minister of State and, in Hereford, Councillor Prendergast and his team and how that has enabled matters to get this far. But I was deeply disappointed by the stand-offish and negative approach adopted by officials of the Department when they responded to the plea of the chief executive of Hereford city council in their letter of 28 February. Having re-emphasised the Minister's view that things should crack along as soon as possible, they took the rather high and mighty line that
The Department does not hold any views on the question of litigation in this case and certainly is in no position either to approve or disapprove such action whether entered into by the Spiral Housing Society Limited or the City Council".
I cannot accept the tone or nature of that. The real nature of the problem needs minds to be addressed to how the litigation aspect might by set aside from the problem of the transfer of ownership. That is the key to it. How do we achieve that? At the same time it is essential that Government maintain their sympathetic approach to the problem, are not seen to be backing off when the going gets rough, and maintain their sympathetic approach to the needs of the tenants of Sherborne close. We need one more push of lateral thought, and that is why I am taking this opportunity to raise the matter tonight.
I believe that the Minister and the Department, which is generously endowed with resource and talent, can help to break this logjam and give Hereford the confidence to complete the job in line with the Minister of State's wishes, as clearly set out in his letter to me of 6 August 1980 when he gave his approval, and re-stated in February of this year that the ownership should be transferred as soon as possible.
I have sought to set out the problem and what I am seeking. I know that it is not a straightforward matter and that much difficulty has been encountered in getting matters even this far. I look forward with interest to seeing what help the Minister can give to Sherborne close.

12 midnight

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) for the clarity of his explanation of the present position, and commend him for the unstinting efforts he has made to resolve the problem. No one could have done more to try to break the logjam he has described.
My Department has known of the general position since November 1979. The decision to encourage the Spiral housing association to sell this development to the city council was taken in May 1980. Since then every effort has been made to secure this transfer of ownership; and that remains my aim.
I was aware that the present owners, the Spiral housing association, had instituted legal proceedings against the builder and the architect for alleged latent defects in the development, caused, so the association claims, by poor design, inadequate supervision and poor construction. I cannot, of course, comment upon the merits of these allegations, but it might be helpful if I described the somewhat tangled history of the development.
The scheme, as my hon. Friend knows, consists of 78 flats built about seven years ago by the San Pierre housing association. That association was unable to obtain registration with the housing corporation and consequently

it was unable to apply for housing association grant. Without this grant-aid, it could not afford to fund this scheme at the then prevailing level of rents. This problem was solved by the North British housing association which, as a purely interim measure, took over the scheme and as a registered association applied for and was paid housing association grant. That grant-aid discharged part of the debt owed to the city of Hereford, which funded the development.
In 1978, in order to rationalise the property holdings of various housing associations, ownership of the development passed to its present owners, the Spiral housing association, an association based in the west midlands. It simply took over the property as it stood, together with the outstanding debt.
In November 1979 it became clear to the association and the city council that major repairs to these flats, which were then only some four years old, were required. They arrived at this conclusion after receiving the report of a consultant architect which detailed the defects, and suggested and costed the remedies. This was discussed with my Department, as my hon. Friend said, and the decision was taken to suggest transfer of ownership to the city council.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction decided that unusually it would be in the best interests of the tenants, who had suffered considerable discomfort and, indeed, hardship from the faults in these flats, if ownership were to pass to the city which had consistently assured him that it could readily and speedily deal with the problems of this development.
I should perhaps explain that no call on the funds available to the city could be involved in this further change of ownership. The city loaned the money for the development; the existing outstanding loan is owed to the city, and the transfer of ownership that my hon. Friend approved was to take place at outstanding loan debt.
The city and the Spiral housing association were told of my hon. Friend's views in August 1980. There then followed protracted discussions between the association and the city council about this transfer of ownership. These now appear to have reached a satisfactory conclusion except, as my hon. Friend said, that the city is plainly concerned that the litigation instituted by the housing association might prove difficult or indeed impossible to pursue once ownership changes hands again.
My understanding is that the Spiral housing association would no longer be able to pursue this litigation. The association will no longer own the property and its debt in respect of the development will have been extinguished. If litigation is to be pursued, and I repeat that I cannot comment on the propriety or wisdom of such a course, then the city would have to commence proceedings from the beginning.
I fully understand, as my hon. Friend does, the city council's concern that if on taking over this development it discovers that it is unable to institute legal proceedings or are advised that it would be unwise so to do it might be open to criticism from its ratepayers and its auditors. It is right that the city council should consider this aspect, balancing its concern on this point against the problems of the tenants of these flats, a matter which has consistently disturbed the city council.
However, the city council cannot look to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to indemnify it in advance against the possibility of such criticism.
My right hon. Friend has powers now under section 19 of the Local Government Act 1982 to give an indemnity or—to give its more usual name—a sanction to a local authority where its actions, or its proposed actions, could give rise to criticism or query. This power is normally used to protect local authorities which resolve to make payments or which have made payments for which they do not have appropriate powers.
The proposed acquisition of Sherborne close is well within the existing powers of the city council. It could not be criticised for taking over the property. I imagine that it is just possible that such criticism could arise if, in the event, the city found itself unable to institute proceedings against the builder and architect or was advised that it would be unwise to do so. If that proves to be the case and if the city council then believes that it needs to seek a sanction from my right hon. Friend, then it could do so after acquiring Sherborne close. But the acquisition of the property is well within the city council's powers and sanctions are not normally given by my right hon. Friend when an authority has acted properly and lawfully.
I am well aware that my hon. Friend may not consider that I have given a total, final and satisfactory response to his proposition. However, I ought to make it quite clear that in making the housing investment allocation to the city for 1983–84 it was assumed that the property would pass into the ownership of the city council during the year and that repairs would begin. The city's allocation would have been somewhat less had that assumption not been made. It is my view and that of my Department that during the past few years we have done all that we can to assist Hereford and Spiral to solve the problem that has been described.
The city has all the powers it needs to acquire this development. It has all the administrative consents it needs, and additional funds to allow it to start repairs.
Since the city has consistently expressed concern over the well-being of the tenants who live in some discomfort in Sherbourne Close, the ball is in its court. It is now entirely for the city to remedy the situation.

Mr. Shepherd: Before my hon. Friend brings his remarks to a close, I should be grateful if he could help me on section 19 of the Local Government Act 1972. That section indicates that the Secretary of State has powers to grant a sanction, but it does not set out in any way the framework within which such a sanction might be granted. Bearing in mind the fact that the city council would want to know roughly how to tackle that problem if it took the decision to proceed, knowing that it would probably have to make an application for a sanction afterwards, can my hon. Friend give me a little guidance on how that point might be considered?

Sir George Young: The best advice that I can give the city council is to ask its members to read carefully what I said some three minutes ago, when I outlined the possible scenario if the city council found itself unable to institute proceedings against the builder and the architect, and was advised that it would be unwise to do so. If that happens, and if the city council then believes that it needs a sanction from my right hon. Friend, it can apply for one and the application would then be considered on its merits. 13ut it cannot be done now, because to acquire the property is well within the existing powers of the city council, and we do not normally give sanctions when an authority is planning to act properly and lawfully.
My hon. Friend should draw the DoE's view of the situation to the attention of the city council. I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, the city council will feel able to take the decision that is now before it, and try to resolve the problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past midnight.